"Butch Ammon" wrote in message
...
Just watch out for those protesters who don't share your view of hunting
as a "rich" tradition. In their eyes, you're an "evil" person......


I know what you are saying. I dealt with that here at work. One of the
ladies
in the admin dept came over to my cubicle one time to talk to me. She saw
a
bunch of old Field & Stream magazines on file cabinet, and saw the photo
of me
decked out in camoflage, standing in front of a duck boat, holding a pair
of
ducks. She darn near wigged out on me: "Is that YOU? Oh my God... I
didn't
know you got into that stuff! You don't seem like the type".

"The TYPE"?!?! What "type" is she referring to? Hmmm.... Maybe it's
because
I'm a mild mannered white collared computer geek, but on weekends I don
the
camoflage and go hunting.

Perhaps she is referring to the type that does'nt outsource 'upleasant'
tasks. If she is a meat eater ask her if she believes that the meat she eats
has all died of natural causes. Suggest she take a field trip to a meat
slaughter/processing plant. If she does so she will learn that annimals are
neither willingly nor painlessly transformed to shrink wrapped packages. She
will also learn that most hunted annimals are more humanely killed than the
shrink wrapped ones.

Perhaps she is referring to the type that does'nt outsource 'upleasant'
tasks. If she is a meat eater ask her if she believes that the meat she eats
has all died of natural causes. Suggest she take a field trip to a meat
slaughter/processing plant. If she does so she will learn that annimals are
neither willingly nor painlessly transformed to shrink wrapped packages. She
will also learn that most hunted annimals are more humanely killed than the
shrink wrapped ones.


I'd rather run free in the forest and take my chances with hunters and
predators than spend my life in a "secure" 16 sq ft cage.

I bet a lot of wild animals feel the same way. :-)

Nim wrote:


She
will also learn that most hunted annimals are more humanely killed than the
shrink wrapped ones.

Humanely killed? What the hell does that mean in hunting? A couple of
years ago, Arnold, one of our pet cats was dying, with several major
organs giving up the ghost. We medicated him for as long as we could, to
keep him alive, but, in the end, when it was obvious he was suffering,
we held him while the vet put him to sleep. He was humanely killed.

In hunting or fishing, there is no such thing as "humanely" killing your
catch.


--
Email sent to is never read.

Harry wrote:

In hunting or fishing, there is no such thing as "humanely" killing your
catch.

If you were a deer, which would you prefer:

1. Dying of starvation or disease as the population grows out of control and
the land can no longer support the herd. This happens quite often when hunting
is severely curtailed.

2. Ending up as a hood ormament on the front of a speeding car. Also a major
problem in some areas where the heards are too large.

3. A quick shot to the heart.

Nature doesn't provide animals or fish with many humane choices for death. Most
don't die of old age like humans.


Barry

F330 GT wrote:

Harry wrote:

In hunting or fishing, there is no such thing as "humanely" killing your
catch.

If you were a deer, which would you prefer:

1. Dying of starvation or disease as the population grows out of control and
the land can no longer support the herd. This happens quite often when hunting
is severely curtailed.

2. Ending up as a hood ormament on the front of a speeding car. Also a major
problem in some areas where the heards are too large.

3. A quick shot to the heart.

Nature doesn't provide animals or fish with many humane choices for death. Most
don't die of old age like humans.


Barry


If I were a deer, I'd prefer NOT to be shot. Period. There is no such
thing as "humane" hunting or fishing if, in the end, you kill the
critter. I understand how we humans like to use softer language to make
our slaughter of the animals we hunt or fish sound better but killing is
killing is killing.

In most cases, the land can no longer support the critters because we
have encroached upon the land, or have killed off all the "natural"
predators. In other words, if there are too many deer in an area, it
isn't because the deer just copulate all day. It is because we have
destroyed their habitat and the room they used to have for free roam
isn't there anymore.

We have deer wandering through our property all the time, and the
property of our neighbors. We're in a "hunter free" zone, and so far, we
are not overpopulated with deer. Once or twice a month, a deer and a car
have an unfortunate encounter out on the county roads, and the deer
almost always loses. Wish we could establish a "deer crossing" that
really was.

If you want to hunt "humanely," then use a camera.



--
Email sent to is never read.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:38:50 +0000, F330 GT wrote:

1. Dying of starvation or disease as the population grows out of control
and the land can no longer support the herd. This happens quite often when
hunting is severely curtailed.

I don't have any problems with hunting, but there is more to the equation
than curtailing hunting. I live in New Jersey, and the deer population
here has exploded. Hunting has not been curtailed, on the contrary,
hunters are allowed many does, and several bucks, depending on
licenses/permits. Here, the Dept. of Fish & Game manage the herd as a
resource, I've heard it argued perhaps too successfully.

Harry,
It looks like the problem is over population of the human species, maybe you
would like to take a stand on correcting this problem and removing yourself
from the encroaching onto the deer's natural habitat.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
F330 GT wrote:

Harry wrote:

In hunting or fishing, there is no such thing as "humanely" killing your
catch.

If you were a deer, which would you prefer:

1. Dying of starvation or disease as the population grows out of control
and
the land can no longer support the herd. This happens quite often when
hunting
is severely curtailed.

2. Ending up as a hood ormament on the front of a speeding car. Also a
major
problem in some areas where the heards are too large.

3. A quick shot to the heart.

Nature doesn't provide animals or fish with many humane choices for
death. Most
don't die of old age like humans.


Barry


If I were a deer, I'd prefer NOT to be shot. Period. There is no such
thing as "humane" hunting or fishing if, in the end, you kill the
critter. I understand how we humans like to use softer language to make
our slaughter of the animals we hunt or fish sound better but killing is
killing is killing.

In most cases, the land can no longer support the critters because we
have encroached upon the land, or have killed off all the "natural"
predators. In other words, if there are too many deer in an area, it
isn't because the deer just copulate all day. It is because we have
destroyed their habitat and the room they used to have for free roam
isn't there anymore.

We have deer wandering through our property all the time, and the
property of our neighbors. We're in a "hunter free" zone, and so far, we
are not overpopulated with deer. Once or twice a month, a deer and a car
have an unfortunate encounter out on the county roads, and the deer
almost always loses. Wish we could establish a "deer crossing" that
really was.

If you want to hunt "humanely," then use a camera.



--
Email sent to is never read.

Subject: See you all in the spring....
From: thunder
Date: 12/13/2003 9:16 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:38:50 +0000, F330 GT wrote:

1. Dying of starvation or disease as the population grows out of control
and the land can no longer support the herd. This happens quite often when
hunting is severely curtailed.

I don't have any problems with hunting, but there is more to the equation
than curtailing hunting. I live in New Jersey, and the deer population
here has exploded. Hunting has not been curtailed, on the contrary,
hunters are allowed many does, and several bucks, depending on
licenses/permits. Here, the Dept. of Fish & Game manage the herd as a
resource, I've heard it argued perhaps too successfully.

And you have successfully stated a problem but you haven't suggested a
solution.

Unfortunately, the human virus has taken up the land and resources that once
belonged to the wildlife. Since we are unable to manage our own herds, we must
try to successfully manage the animal population. We do this in ways that try
to maximize their herds without them encroaching on our lifestyle. Hunting is
just one of the ways that we do this.

Unless we are willing to give up our own breeding habits, I guess we are going
to have to continue managing theirs.

Barry

Harry wrote:

In hunting or fishing, there is no such thing as "humanely" killing your
catch.

If you were a deer, which would you prefer:

1. Dying of starvation or disease as the population grows out of control
and
the land can no longer support the herd. This happens quite often when
hunting
is severely curtailed.

2. Ending up as a hood ormament on the front of a speeding car. Also a
major
problem in some areas where the heards are too large.

3. A quick shot to the heart.

Nature doesn't provide animals or fish with many humane choices for death.
Most
don't die of old age like humans.


Barry


If I were a deer, I'd prefer NOT to be shot. Period. There is no such
thing as "humane" hunting or fishing if, in the end, you kill the
critter. I understand how we humans like to use softer language to make
our slaughter of the animals we hunt or fish sound better but killing is
killing is killing.

In most cases, the land can no longer support the critters because we
have encroached upon the land, or have killed off all the "natural"
predators. In other words, if there are too many deer in an area, it
isn't because the deer just copulate all day. It is because we have
destroyed their habitat and the room they used to have for free roam
isn't there anymore.

We have deer wandering through our property all the time, and the
property of our neighbors. We're in a "hunter free" zone, and so far, we
are not overpopulated with deer. Once or twice a month, a deer and a car
have an unfortunate encounter out on the county roads, and the deer
almost always loses. Wish we could establish a "deer crossing" that
really was.

If you want to hunt "humanely," then use a camera.


So Harry, what's your solution to the problem? Should we give the land back? In
fact, should we just give it back to the Indians and all move back to Western
Europe. Thant presents a whole new set of problems.

Reality has to fit into your perception of what is right and wrong. I'm not a
big hunter but I'm a realist. And I don't see the difference btween eating
venison and eating beef, chicken, pork, or store bought salmon. They all die
pretty much the same way.

And you being a avid fisherman, I'm surprised to hear that you practice
strictly "catch and release". What about the poor crabs in those crabcakes that
you love? What an untimely death to be thrown into a cauldron of boiling water.
Shame on you.


Barry

F330 GT wrote:

Harry wrote:

In hunting or fishing, there is no such thing as "humanely" killing your
catch.

If you were a deer, which would you prefer:

1. Dying of starvation or disease as the population grows out of control
and
the land can no longer support the herd. This happens quite often when
hunting
is severely curtailed.

2. Ending up as a hood ormament on the front of a speeding car. Also a
major
problem in some areas where the heards are too large.

3. A quick shot to the heart.

Nature doesn't provide animals or fish with many humane choices for death.
Most
don't die of old age like humans.


Barry


If I were a deer, I'd prefer NOT to be shot. Period. There is no such
thing as "humane" hunting or fishing if, in the end, you kill the
critter. I understand how we humans like to use softer language to make
our slaughter of the animals we hunt or fish sound better but killing is
killing is killing.

In most cases, the land can no longer support the critters because we
have encroached upon the land, or have killed off all the "natural"
predators. In other words, if there are too many deer in an area, it
isn't because the deer just copulate all day. It is because we have
destroyed their habitat and the room they used to have for free roam
isn't there anymore.

We have deer wandering through our property all the time, and the
property of our neighbors. We're in a "hunter free" zone, and so far, we
are not overpopulated with deer. Once or twice a month, a deer and a car
have an unfortunate encounter out on the county roads, and the deer
almost always loses. Wish we could establish a "deer crossing" that
really was.

If you want to hunt "humanely," then use a camera.


So Harry, what's your solution to the problem? Should we give the land back? In
fact, should we just give it back to the Indians and all move back to Western
Europe. Thant presents a whole new set of problems.


The issue was over the "humane" killing of animals for sport. My posit
is that there is no "humane" way. I also made the point that it was our
fault, not the fault of the animals, that their habitat was taken.

There's no single solution, but what we should consider is a halt,
wherever possible, to the destruction of remaining habitat.



Reality has to fit into your perception of what is right and wrong. I'm not a
big hunter but I'm a realist. And I don't see the difference btween eating
venison and eating beef, chicken, pork, or store bought salmon. They all die
pretty much the same way.

I make no claim that buying packaged beef is higher-minded than shooting
it for sport, although I do maintain there is no "sport" in hunting.


And you being a avid fisherman, I'm surprised to hear that you practice
strictly "catch and release". What about the poor crabs in those crabcakes that
you love? What an untimely death to be thrown into a cauldron of boiling water.
Shame on you.


Barry

That wasn't my point, Barry.


--
Email sent to is never read.