The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

John,
you will see Harry will avoid any logical conversation, he is too interested
in insults to discuss any topic.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 20:50:45 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

noah wrote:

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 20:06:25 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

jps wrote:
"noah" wrote in message
...

Don, FWIW, laser sights and silencers are strictly illegal for any
kind of hunting, and any responsible hunter would not think of using
them even if they were legal. Also FWIW, if I am bird hunting
(including waterfowl), I do not shoot them if they are "down". All
shots are taken "in flight".

Don't geese mate for life?



Not when our hunterboys shoot down one of the pair.

Harry, I have never seen you react so emotionally, and illogically.
I don't suppose that it would matter if I said that I love wildlife as
much, or more, than you do.

Are you familiar with hunting cultures? The respect I have is very
similar to Native American respect and spirituality concerning the
animals they killed, ate, and revered.

I am beginning to see you in a different light.

noah


You've totally missed my point, which is that I do not believe hunting
is a sport. As for Native Americans of the 19th and earlier centuries,
they hunted to survive. That's a bit different than a bunch of drunks
with shotguns going out to a field where geese have landed and blasting
the birds to kingdom come and thinking that "sport" has taken place.

Harry, where do mute swans fall in your anti-hunting tirades? Should they
be
killed? Do you think hunters are hurting the Canada geese population?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

On 07 Sep 2003 00:56:34 GMT, 123 (Butch Ammon) wrote:

I don't know about other varieties, but Canada geese do mate "for
life", but if one mate dies, the other will take another mate. Nature
takes it's course.

FWIW, New York State has increased (doubled) the daily limit on Canada
geese this year because there is an overpopulation. This will lead to
starvation and increased disease if not controlled. So, hunters like
me can have goose dinner, or we can watch them die slow deaths from
other causes.

Every state in the US uses hunting as one form of population control
for wildlife. If there is a moral issue here, I would argue that it
is more humane to kill and eat wildlife than it is to allow wide
spread starvation and disease. I would also argue that it is not a
moral issue, but an emotional one.

The Canada goose and the whitetail deer are two animals that have
"benefitted" from human development and destruction of natural
habitats. With the loss of natural areas, natural predators (such as
wolves and coyotes) have been decimated or eliminated. Both of these
species eat grass and farm crops. With the expansion of human
development, the populations can expand exponentially and cause
significant problems. Hunting is one method of control.

noah


Excellent post, Noah! :-)

You took a page right out of the Virginia Dept of Game and Inland Fisheries
(our local game warden's).

There is a serious overabundance of Canadian Geese. A good majority of them no
longer migrate, because of the "Bill & Buffy" type of people feed them bread
crumbs at the local park! You have to dodge goose dropping when walking on the
side walk of business developements. I have come home from playing golf with
goose poop stuck all over the spikes of my golf shoes.

Deer are getting hit by cars, because of the ever expanding suburbs in towns
and cities. Fact: Last year's deer season on that military base (Fort A.P.
Hill) here in Virginia, deer hunters took an estimated 1200 deer from the
massive herd. Even with that many deer eliminated, they didn't even put a dent
in the overpopulation!

Butch Ammon

The situation is similar in many states, and with different species.

I wish that people could take a more objective view, but some can't,
or won't. What was that recent movie about "Nemo?" the little fish?
He was cute, wasn't he? Maybe we should ban fishing. :o)
I can't stand the idea of a bunch of drunken fishermen, in their 200hp
killing machines, bearing down on that cute little guy. Won't
*somebody* think of the children!!?! Oh...the humanity!!!

It is a sure bet that the "blood thirsty" hunter is contributing more,
and more money through license fees, memberships, and purchases, to
the preservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats, than the keyboard
critic. Same goes for fishing.

noah

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

AsI read this I thought of 'human' overpopulation, destruction of habitat
and eventual starvation.
Would your solution work here also?

noah wrote in message
...

Every state in the US uses hunting as one form of population control
for wildlife. If there is a moral issue here, I would argue that it
is more humane to kill and eat wildlife than it is to allow wide
spread starvation and disease. I would also argue that it is not a
moral issue, but an emotional one.

The Canada goose and the whitetail deer are two animals that have
"benefitted" from human development and destruction of natural
habitats. With the loss of natural areas, natural predators (such as
wolves and coyotes) have been decimated or eliminated. Both of these
species eat grass and farm crops. With the expansion of human
development, the populations can expand exponentially and cause
significant problems. Hunting is one method of control.

noah

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

Chris,
No, I am not saying it does not happen, but I do believe it is a very small
percentage. The post you made was:

"I think they should be allowed to shoot each other without a permit. I
also would not require deer to get permits to shoot the hunters either. If
you kill an animal just for the fun (sport) of it, then the same should be
done to you....period"

Based upon that post, I think you allowed your emotions to overcome your
brain. Do you think those who fish for Sport should have a hook placed in
their lip and be dragged through the water?


Yes, I think fishing is no good unless you are going to eat the fish. I do not
agree with any form of "sport" where a person gets entertainment from hurting
another living thing for no reason. As for my original post, I was obviously
being dramatic and following up on a previous thought within the thread. I
think that was clear. You know where I stand and I know where you stand, and I
think we are basically in agreement.

Chris

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

"Butch Ammon" wrote in message
...

You have to dodge goose dropping when walking on the
side walk of business developements. I have come home from playing golf
with
goose poop stuck all over the spikes of my golf shoes.

Wow, that's darned inconvenient!

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

Do you mind if I bring my dog over to your porch? It is only a minor
inconvenient to step over his turds. Seriously, the overpopulation of geese
in many areas, is causing waterways to become polluted with bird poop, which
is a health hazards to humans and other wildlife.
"jps" wrote in message
...
"Butch Ammon" wrote in message
...

You have to dodge goose dropping when walking on the
side walk of business developements. I have come home from playing golf
with
goose poop stuck all over the spikes of my golf shoes.

Wow, that's darned inconvenient!

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

Fish farming is very common through out the US, including catfish, tilapia,
and shrimp. So would you think before you speak or should we group you with
the "I may not know much but I sure have an opinion on each subject" crowd?
http://www.fishfarming.com/index.html?src=overture

"jps" wrote in message
...
"noah" wrote in message
...

I wish that people could take a more objective view, but some can't,
or won't. What was that recent movie about "Nemo?" the little fish?
He was cute, wasn't he? Maybe we should ban fishing. :o)

Well, let's talk about whaling or bone fishing or fishing the **** out of
every species that becomes popular as it hits the plates of restaurants
across the land.

Unfortunately, we can't farm fish (other than Atlantic salmon that are
****ing up the wild species here in the NW) and genetically modify them
for
increased production.

So, would you like to make your point a little more succinctly, or should
we
group you with the "bring 'em on" crowd?

jps

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

That's a more convincing argument than "It gets caught in my golf shoes."

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:8RA6b.379234$o%2.171093@sccrnsc02...
Do you mind if I bring my dog over to your porch? It is only a minor
inconvenient to step over his turds. Seriously, the overpopulation of
geese
in many areas, is causing waterways to become polluted with bird poop,
which
is a health hazards to humans and other wildlife.
"jps" wrote in message
...
"Butch Ammon" wrote in message
...

You have to dodge goose dropping when walking on the
side walk of business developements. I have come home from playing
golf
with
goose poop stuck all over the spikes of my golf shoes.

Wow, that's darned inconvenient!

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

You just posted an article which plainly points out the hazzards of
aquaculture farming. In the NW it's a disaster. It's as stupid as not
incenting alternative energy development while we're completely dependent on
foreign oil. Bush recently vowed to stand behind those who don't want dams
breached for environmental purposes. Instead of promoting smarter energy
policy and ensuring a healthy population of fish to harvest through nature's
own process, we're for the status quo and ****ed up farming techniques.

America, willing to sacrafice Mother Nature for the almighty dollar.


"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:YYA6b.379058$Ho3.57451@sccrnsc03...
Fish farming is very common through out the US, including catfish,
tilapia,
and shrimp. So would you think before you speak or should we group you
with
the "I may not know much but I sure have an opinion on each subject"
crowd?
http://www.fishfarming.com/index.html?src=overture

"jps" wrote in message
...
"noah" wrote in message
...

I wish that people could take a more objective view, but some can't,
or won't. What was that recent movie about "Nemo?" the little fish?
He was cute, wasn't he? Maybe we should ban fishing. :o)

Well, let's talk about whaling or bone fishing or fishing the **** out
of
every species that becomes popular as it hits the plates of restaurants
across the land.

Unfortunately, we can't farm fish (other than Atlantic salmon that are
****ing up the wild species here in the NW) and genetically modify them
for
increased production.

So, would you like to make your point a little more succinctly, or
should
we
group you with the "bring 'em on" crowd?

jps

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

I was not making a judgment call on fish farming, I was making the
observation that it is common. I thought you said "we can't farm fish".
If you read the articles it highlighted the problems and possible solutions.
If you are not willing to find better ways to harvest fish, it is time you
give up eating fish.


"jps" wrote in message
...
You just posted an article which plainly points out the hazzards of
aquaculture farming. In the NW it's a disaster. It's as stupid as not
incenting alternative energy development while we're completely dependent
on
foreign oil. Bush recently vowed to stand behind those who don't want
dams
breached for environmental purposes. Instead of promoting smarter energy
policy and ensuring a healthy population of fish to harvest through
nature's
own process, we're for the status quo and ****ed up farming techniques.

America, willing to sacrafice Mother Nature for the almighty dollar.


"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:YYA6b.379058$Ho3.57451@sccrnsc03...
Fish farming is very common through out the US, including catfish,
tilapia,
and shrimp. So would you think before you speak or should we group you
with
the "I may not know much but I sure have an opinion on each subject"
crowd?
http://www.fishfarming.com/index.html?src=overture

"jps" wrote in message
...
"noah" wrote in message
...

I wish that people could take a more objective view, but some
can't,
or won't. What was that recent movie about "Nemo?" the little fish?
He was cute, wasn't he? Maybe we should ban fishing. :o)

Well, let's talk about whaling or bone fishing or fishing the **** out
of
every species that becomes popular as it hits the plates of
restaurants
across the land.

Unfortunately, we can't farm fish (other than Atlantic salmon that are
****ing up the wild species here in the NW) and genetically modify
them
for
increased production.

So, would you like to make your point a little more succinctly, or
should
we
group you with the "bring 'em on" crowd?

jps

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

Guess I'm a bit of a 'tree hugger'......not fanatical....
My beef would be with those who 'cheat' by poaching, taking more than the
limit, setting traps...such as putting apples out to lure deer in...etc.
Not so much the true sportsman.
I personally have a pact with the local wildlife.
They don't try to eat me and I won't shoot them.
note: I do have relatives...especially inlaws, who love to hunt.


noah wrote in message
...
What brought about your negative response? I wasn't looking for a
fight, but I'm Irish.
noah

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:%eJ6b.380729$YN5.252223@sccrnsc01...
I was not making a judgment call on fish farming, I was making the
observation that it is common. I thought you said "we can't farm fish".
If you read the articles it highlighted the problems and possible
solutions.
If you are not willing to find better ways to harvest fish, it is time you
give up eating fish.

snip
I have, for that exact reason. I will still eat fish that I catch, but I
will not buy commercially produced fish. I don't expect it to make a lot of
difference, but it is the principle of the thing.

Mark Browne

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:06:48 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .

I wish that people could take a more objective view, but some can't,
or won't. What was that recent movie about "Nemo?" the little fish?
He was cute, wasn't he? Maybe we should ban fishing. :o)

Well, let's talk about whaling or bone fishing or fishing the **** out of
every species that becomes popular as it hits the plates of restaurants
across the land.

Unfortunately, we can't farm fish (other than Atlantic salmon that are
****ing up the wild species here in the NW) and genetically modify them for
increased production.

So, would you like to make your point a little more succinctly, or should we
group you with the "bring 'em on" crowd?

jps


I have absolutely no idea what your point or objection may be, and I
read your response twice.
Perhaps "succint" would be a good, universal idea.

noah

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

"noah" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:06:48 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .

I wish that people could take a more objective view, but some can't,
or won't. What was that recent movie about "Nemo?" the little fish?
He was cute, wasn't he? Maybe we should ban fishing. :o)

Well, let's talk about whaling or bone fishing or fishing the **** out of
every species that becomes popular as it hits the plates of restaurants
across the land.

Unfortunately, we can't farm fish (other than Atlantic salmon that are
****ing up the wild species here in the NW) and genetically modify them
for
increased production.

So, would you like to make your point a little more succinctly, or should
we
group you with the "bring 'em on" crowd?

jps


I have absolutely no idea what your point or objection may be, and I
read your response twice.


Don't worry...that's a common reaction most people have after reading one of
jps's posts.

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

Chris wrote:

This doesn't even deserve a reply.

......BUT....

Look man, I *DON'T* just go out and aimlessly blast any wild animal that I
see.
If I want to augment my family's suppliment of food, and it happens to be
turkey season, I will go out and get a turkey for us to eat. You eat turkey
at
Thansgiving, don't you?

I don't know of any hunter friends of mine that go out and blast animals for
the sport of it. There are rules and regulations, and a hunter can get
heavily
fined and maybe jailed for poaching.

Butch Ammon




If you look at what I wrote I was talking about those who kill animals for the
fun of it, not for the purposes of food. If you like to kill your own food to
save money or because you enjoy it I have no problem with that. I was talking
about those who kill a deer or any animal and just leave it for dead, and
plenty of people do that. Read more carefully next time.

Chris


Ya know Chris, Butch is a good guy. The fact here is that people who
hunt hear this junk that they are just going out to kill somthing all
the time. Myself and anyone I know who hunts eat what they get. In most
cases it is the only way to get the select types of meat. That not only
has a different taste but is not injected with drugs to make they fatter
bigger etc. I don't know anyone who would want to be in the same area
with some idiot that just wants to blast somthing.

You seem a reasonable guy, I am just posting this because hunters seen
to hear about the few who will abuse anything they can. What you are
saying you have a probelm with 99% of the hunter do as well..

Capt Jack R..

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

What was your point?


"jps" wrote in message
...
"noah" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:06:48 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .

I wish that people could take a more objective view, but some can't,
or won't. What was that recent movie about "Nemo?" the little fish?
He was cute, wasn't he? Maybe we should ban fishing. :o)

Well, let's talk about whaling or bone fishing or fishing the **** out
of
every species that becomes popular as it hits the plates of restaurants
across the land.

Unfortunately, we can't farm fish (other than Atlantic salmon that are
****ing up the wild species here in the NW) and genetically modify them
for
increased production.

So, would you like to make your point a little more succinctly, or
should
we
group you with the "bring 'em on" crowd?

jps


I have absolutely no idea what your point or objection may be, and I
read your response twice.
Perhaps "succint" would be a good, universal idea.

noah

It was aimed at your flip remard about "banning fishing" as if the
complaints of the environmentalists are wholly without merit.

If you care to concentrate for a few moments, I think my point was made
very
well.

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

Allright...but I'll be praying for you :-)

noah wrote in message
...
There are differences, to be sure, but the primary goal is the same.
Agree to disagree on the hunting issue?

Regards,
noah

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:54:32 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:06:48 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .

I wish that people could take a more objective view, but some can't,
or won't. What was that recent movie about "Nemo?" the little fish?
He was cute, wasn't he? Maybe we should ban fishing. :o)

Well, let's talk about whaling or bone fishing or fishing the **** out of
every species that becomes popular as it hits the plates of restaurants
across the land.

Unfortunately, we can't farm fish (other than Atlantic salmon that are
****ing up the wild species here in the NW) and genetically modify them
for
increased production.

So, would you like to make your point a little more succinctly, or should
we
group you with the "bring 'em on" crowd?

jps


I have absolutely no idea what your point or objection may be, and I
read your response twice.
Perhaps "succint" would be a good, universal idea.

noah

It was aimed at your flip remard about "banning fishing" as if the
complaints of the environmentalists are wholly without merit.

If you care to concentrate for a few moments, I think my point was made very
well.



No need to get testy, my friend.
I think you missed a few stops on the trolley.
I happen to *be* an environmentalist, and put my money where my mouth
is, and I also hunt and fish.
I was responding to those who condemned hunting while being active
fishermen themselves.
The comment about banning fishing was mild sarcasm, as indicated by
Mr. Smiley " :o) ".

No need to insult. No, your point was confusing, as you
misinterpreted my statement.

.....what were we talking about?

noah

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 02:26:08 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:

Allright...but I'll be praying for you :-)


LOL!!! ...God knows, I need it!

Regards,
noah

The problem with these off-topic, political threads...
 

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:39:57 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .

No need to insult. No, your point was confusing, as you
misinterpreted my statement.

....what were we talking about?

noah

Sorry, it just hit me the wrong way. You meant it as tongue in cheek, I
thought it was flip. I was thinking you were short shrifting the efforts to
protect fish and the hazards of commercial (netting and killing huge amounts
of unwanted sealife and overfishing species without regards to their
sustainability) and sport fishing (bonefish and other "sport fish"
depletion).

I know you're a level headed sportsman which is why I was concerned about
your comment.

Sorry.

jps

No need for sorry. One of the intrinsic problems of Usenet is that we
never (hardly ever) get to look the other person in the eye while
they're "talking". It is easy to misunderstand, and I have done it
myself.

Thanks for the reply.

Regards,
noah