Bogley

[tanya]

Rev. Coyote wrote: I think killing an animal just for the kill (sport) is wrong compared to the killing of an animal for food (hunting). Sport killing gives hunting a bad name.

Plus, killing predators throws off the "natural balance." Predation helps herd improvement among deer, for instance. If you look at the deer population in my native state of Virginia, for instance, you can see how the lack of predators has made for an unhealthy herd. The annual hunt can't keep up with the population explosion. Wolves would help.

By the way, do you see anything wrong with killing bald eagles (loaded question, I know)? But they're predators and off the threatened list.

Very good :2thumbs:

[Sombeech]

Rev. Coyote wrote: I think killing an animal just for the kill (sport) is wrong compared to the killing of an animal for food (hunting). Sport killing gives hunting a bad name.

So this whole thing is meant for sport? I thought it was to regulate the predator levels.

And anytime that humans are not figured into the "Natural Balance", the equation is flawed.

[shlingdawg]

I just don't understand the emotion that people tie to wolves. My aunt is a freak about wolves and is totally offended when this issue comes up. I see nothing wrong with thinning the previously protected packs of wolves.

As I understand it (speaking of those wolves around the Teton Nat'l Park) is that Timberwolves were re-introduced into the area. This species of wolf had never previously existed in the region. Any time you introduce a non-native species of anything into an area, inbalance occurs.

What is the difference between the gray wolf and the timberwolf? Again, my understanding is that the gray wolf is much smaller and less aggressive than the Timberwolf. By introducing the non-native species, the imbalance is perpetuating itself more aggressively than planned. The Jackson Elk Herd, in the span of a few years has gone from a stong 13,000 head to less than 7,000. I would not consider this a natural flucuation.

I don't really care either way. I understand that there are people whose lives are dependent upon the elk and other huntable game (outfitters, guides, businesses of all sort that cater to the out-of-towner hunters) and their livelihood is at stake because of the imbalance of things.

I have a brother that lives in Star Valley. I was up there hunting coyotes last month and saw two wolves out on Palisades Reservoir. While neat to look at, they are nothing more than an overgrown, over-aggressive coyote. If delisted - I'll hunt them too.

About the bald eagle. Do I see anything wrong with shooting them? Yes. That, to me, is about the same thing as defacing a national monument.

[Rev. Coyote]

shlingdawg wrote: About the bald eagle. Do I see anything wrong with shooting them? Yes. That, to me, is about the same thing as defacing a national monument.


I know I baited you there, but you went directly to the emotional side of the issue.


Welfare cattle are non-native. And you can eat 'em!

Capish?

[shlingdawg]

That's what I'm looking for.......... what is the emotional side of the wolf deal? I don't get it.

[price1869]

Rev. Coyote wrote:

I think killing an animal just for the kill (sport) is wrong compared to the killing of an animal for food (hunting). Sport killing gives hunting a bad name.


Okay,

I hear this all the time from non-hunters, and it really gets on my nerves. No one, and I mean no one in the United States of America needs to hunt for food. It's just not even close to a necessity. And if you eat the animal you hunted, that doesn't make it any different. You didn't need to kill the animal. Eat a hamburger. Eat soybeans for hells sake.

Hunting in this day and age is a sport. That's it. It costs you more to get your meat processed than it would to go buy hamburger.

All that being said . . . I support hunting. I think it's fun, and necessary. Eco-balance can certainly be acheived through hunting. Wolves, Elk, Buffalo, Turtles, Treehuggers, whatever. If there are too many of them, start handing out tags. :2thumbs:

(someone is going to come back with "well, i think there are too many of you(price) or humans." Well, if you really think so, go get a tag. I might be better at defending myself than your average whitetail.)

As far as shooting bald eagles - If there are too many in an ecosystem, or they are where they don't belong, start handing out tags. :2thumbs:

[Sombeech]

price1869 wrote: As far as shooting bald eagles - If there are too many in an ecosystem, or they are where they don't belong, start handing out tags. :2thumbs:

Ditto. This is the non-emotional fact of how the Fish & Game systems work. If there are too many Bald Eagles around, making all of the field mice become extinct & chasing off the other birds, then something will be done about it.

Those of you defending this breed of wolf; Can you tell me how many are needed to balance the ecosystem? No, you can't. You can only complain that killing them is wrong, unless it's for food.

Who has gone hunting for hunger? :ne_nau: We blasted the HELL outta them rabbits last month, and didn't ever consider eating them.

[Rev. Coyote]

price1869 wrote: Okay,

I hear this all the time from non-hunters, and it really gets on my nerves. No one, and I mean no one in the United States of America needs to hunt for food. It's just not even close to a necessity. And if you eat the animal you hunted, that doesn't make it any different. You didn't need to kill the animal. Eat a hamburger. Eat soybeans for hells sake.

Price, you make some astoundingly ignorant statements here. Maybe it's because you're an urbanite, or among only well-heeled people, but you obviously have no clue whatsoever as to the number of people out there who hunt to feed themselves -- people outside your insulated little world.

First off, I am not a non-hunter as you so glibly imply. Second, I know two people right now -- very good friends -- who keep their bellies full in part by hunting and fishing. Maybe you'd rather see them on food stamps, but they don't swing that way. They hunt and fish to stay fed because they're living so close to the bone that that is the way they survive.

Also, they are not suburban yuppies who take their game to a friggin' processor. I help one of these guys butcher deer every time he gets one. We hang out by a campfire all day getting good and bloody, usually with Neil Young tapes playing and a big honking pot of coffee on the fire. A lot of people in the U.S. South get by this way (some with Neil, some with Skynyrd). Your insinuating that no one needs to hunt comes from absolute blind ignorance.

As to the sense I get that you just hunt because you like the killing, I can only suggest you need to get laid more. And watch out tracking those "tree-huggers" -- a lot of them are real well armed.

[Sombeech]

P.S. I moved this to the Hunting forum.

[price1869]

Sombeech wrote: P.S. I moved this to the Hunting forum.

Don't you mean the political BS forum?

and Coyote, key word "necessity". Read again.

Ha ha . . urbanite. Urbanites are the ones that think people actually have to hunt and fish to survive. Farmers, ranchers and the educated are the ones who understand supply, demand, etc.

In general, the hours spent hunting could easily be turned into hours spent working, and therefor, no need for killing little creatures. Seems you enjoy proving me wrong though, so your turn . . .

[price1869]

Rev. Coyote wrote: price1869 wrote:

Price, you make some astoundingly ignorant statements here. Maybe it's because you're an urbanite, or among only well-heeled people, but you obviously have no clue whatsoever as to the number of people out there who hunt to feed themselves -- people outside your insulated little world.


Your insinuating that no one needs to hunt comes from absolute blind ignorance.


ignorantz? Learn to spell. :nod: Insult my intelligence without knowing anything about me? That's what ignorant people do. :nod:

[shlingdawg]

Rev. Coyote wrote:
I help one of these guys butcher deer every time he gets one. We hang out by a campfire all day getting good and bloody, usually with Neil Young tapes playing and a big honking pot of coffee on the fire. A lot of people in the U.S. South get by this way (some with Neil, some with Skynyrd). Your insinuating that no one needs to hunt comes from absolute blind ignorance.

As to the sense I get that you just hunt because you like the killing, I can only suggest you need to get laid more. And watch out tracking those "tree-huggers" -- a lot of them are real well armed.

So this guy that you help butcher deer - he'll spend all his money on a truck, camper, gas and beer (you know you're not out there drinking coffee) to justify acquiring food for his family?

And here I thought that the stereotypes about the south were wrong. Where is that banjo music coming from?

[Rev. Coyote]

shlingdawg wrote: So this guy that you help butcher deer - he'll spend all his money on a truck, camper, gas and beer (you know you're not out there drinking coffee) to justify acquiring food for his family?

And here I thought that the stereotypes about the south were wrong. Where is that banjo music coming from?

Actually, he hunts on his land. He's got about 15 acres of deep swampy woodland where he's able to get a couple deer a year -- as many as he needs. So all he does is go out real early and sit on the ground against a tree. The deer sometimes walk right up to him. Then blammo. No truck, no camper. Just an old 50 cal. black powder rifle. One shot.

The "sportsmen" drive in from city and suburb in high dollar pickups with ATVs, dogs with radio collars, nice Browning shotguns and line up along the damn roads with walkie-talkies. Sportsmen. They usually take more than they need, get stupid drunk, then haul whatever they don't leave in the field to the processor because they're too lazy to butcher.

There's a special disdain those of us who live in the country learn regarding the weekend warrior and the wannabe redneck. I've seen 'em. They ain't hunters.

As far as beer while butchering, we usually do that stuff early in the morning after the deer hangs all night. Too early. Plus, drunkie and choppie don't mix.

But we both play in a bluegrass band, so you got me there!

[shlingdawg]

I still want to hear about this deal w/ the wolves. Why are you such an opponent of killing some of them?

[Rev. Coyote]

shlingdawg wrote: I still want to hear about this deal w/ the wolves. Why are you such an opponent of killing some of them?

I oppose extermination mentality.

I refer back to natural balance. We've followed an extermination policy regarding certain predators in this country, mostly to protect livestock. You ask about this stuff, and I wonder if you're at all familiar with the term "biodiversity." Kill a few wolves or coyotes because they threaten your welfare cattle, maybe I can understand -- but an all-out extermination policy is just stupid. That's why I take Idaho's chest-thumping cretin governor to task.

Just look at how modern forest management has gone terribly wrong with monoculture and with agressive fire supression. We now have unhealthy, unnatural woodlands prone to insect and disease. We did the forests no good at all "protecting" them from their natural enemies (strange term there, but we'll go with it).

The sport killing of wolves I object to based on moral precept -- because it is depraved to kill for killing's sake. Ask any criminal psychologist about this one -- about the kid who shoots songbirds with his Red Ryder and how he'll turn out.

I asked you about the eagle because I knew your response would be emotional. And there's a lot of folks out there feel emotional about wolves because they (like eagles) are beautiful creatures that represent freedom, independence, and strength. That's the emotional part for me, but I think deer are pretty too. But I'll eat a deer.

Call my a hypocrite if you want, but my arguments regarding the biodiversity angle are sound and well-known.

Ever hear the buffalo theory regarding beer and brain cells...?

Well, back to work. Have a good day up in Yankeeland!