Eating meat found to be environmentally destructiv

[archenemy]

Since there are now more deer in the continental US than at the time of Columbus's landing, the only realistic alternative to culling via hunting is culling via starvation.

 

In Iowa deer are so numerous that they have set up a program that encourages hunters to kill more deer and donate their excess venison to food-banks.

And let's please not forget that hunters pay for 100% of the costs of managing these herds. That includes keeping track of them, selectively feeding groups that have starved below acceptable levels, innoculating herds from completely devestating diseases when/where appropriate, etc etc etc.

[tvashtarkatena]

You go out with a pack that weighs three times as much as the one you came in with. If that ain't a sport for the stupid, I don't know what is.

Back when I hunted, I didn't view it as a sport, no more so than growing my own vegatables was a sport. I wanted to know where my meat was coming from. It was work, that had some sporting elements (like using a trad bow). But I know a lot of hunters viewed it as a sport, which was part of the culture about the entire experience that I didn't like.

Well put. Although I am not against hunting as a sport, I do not personally hunt for sport. I do not consider my impetus for hunting superior than those who hunt for their own entertainment (I am, of course, against poaching). I started hunting b/c I couldn't afford meat any other way.

On the other hand, I fish and I pretty much only catch and release. In essence, I only fish for my own entertainment. This, on my mind, is ethically equivalent to those who hunt for pleasure. And yes, the animal is not killed--but I think the logic is about the same.

 

So, you spent $$$ for a tank of gas, a gun, ammo, licenses, those cool looking technicolor vests, etc...because you couldn't afford chicken at .99/lb?

 

Bwahhhh!

 

You po black chilluns sho kno howda make up dat shit talk....

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Speaking of "living authentically"...

 

There was an interesting article in a recent issue of Backpacker magazine about teaching kids to live a nomadic lifestyle in Vermont in the winter.

[rob]

Since there are now more deer in the continental US than at the time of Columbus's landing, the only realistic alternative to culling via hunting is culling via starvation.

 

In Iowa deer are so numerous that they have set up a program that encourages hunters to kill more deer and donate their excess venison to food-banks.

And let's please not forget that hunters pay for 100% of the costs of managing these herds. That includes keeping track of them, selectively feeding groups that have starved below acceptable levels, innoculating herds from completely devestating diseases when/where appropriate, etc etc etc.

 

Wow, Really? 100%? Does that include the cost of the salaries of the fish and wildlife guys, too? Wow, hunting fees must be enormous!

[archenemy]

You go out with a pack that weighs three times as much as the one you came in with. If that ain't a sport for the stupid, I don't know what is.

Back when I hunted, I didn't view it as a sport, no more so than growing my own vegatables was a sport. I wanted to know where my meat was coming from. It was work, that had some sporting elements (like using a trad bow). But I know a lot of hunters viewed it as a sport, which was part of the culture about the entire experience that I didn't like.

Well put. Although I am not against hunting as a sport, I do not personally hunt for sport. I do not consider my impetus for hunting superior than those who hunt for their own entertainment (I am, of course, against poaching). I started hunting b/c I couldn't afford meat any other way.

On the other hand, I fish and I pretty much only catch and release. In essence, I only fish for my own entertainment. This, on my mind, is ethically equivalent to those who hunt for pleasure. And yes, the animal is not killed--but I think the logic is about the same.

 

So, you spent $$$ for a tank of gas, a gun, ammo, licenses, those cool looking technicolor vests, etc...because you couldn't afford chicken at .99/lb?

 

Bwahhhh!

 

You po black chilluns sho kno howda make up dat shit talk....

Your version of hunting is pretty different than mine. I was given my first gun, I caught a ride with my hunting buddies, I didn't and don't dress up beyond the regulation $2.99 orange overvest, paid the $48 Idaho license fee and bought a $15 box of ammo and had meat for myself, my man, and my random guests for a year. My meat was clean and butchered by me in my clean kitchen. I stored it in a chest freezer I bought used for $25. And I know that the animal lived well and died quickly (b/c believe it or not, I actually like animals and don't want them to live in feed lots).

I know I will never change anyone's mind about hunting with my logic and my feelings behind my actions. But I do think it is important to discuss it--especially with people who "embrace diversity" and all that shit (that may not be you, but I'm just saying...). Different strokes for different folks.

[archenemy]

Since there are now more deer in the continental US than at the time of Columbus's landing, the only realistic alternative to culling via hunting is culling via starvation.

 

In Iowa deer are so numerous that they have set up a program that encourages hunters to kill more deer and donate their excess venison to food-banks.

And let's please not forget that hunters pay for 100% of the costs of managing these herds. That includes keeping track of them, selectively feeding groups that have starved below acceptable levels, innoculating herds from completely devestating diseases when/where appropriate, etc etc etc.

 

Wow, Really? 100%? Does that include the cost of the salaries of the fish and wildlife guys, too? Wow, hunting fees must be enormous!

Either that or you don't think that the average taxpayer is responsible for some of the work that fish & wildlife do. Or, maybe we should charge hikers everytime they see a nice birdie or bambie?

[rob]

Arch, I don't mind tax dollars being used to fund programs that benefit hunters at all. I was just calling bullshit on the 100% claim.

 

At least hunted animals aren't tortured before they are killed.

Edited July 20, 2007 by robmcdan

[olyclimber]

Here is a pic of my brother and family with Bambi:

 

[Macson]

Wow, Really? 100%? Does that include the cost of the salaries of the fish and wildlife guys, too? Wow, hunting fees must be enormous!

 

It's not just hunting fees. Look up the Pittman-Robertson Act. Every time you buy hunting "stuff" a tax has been levied at the manufacturers level. The money collected goes back to the states to manage hunting and wildlife. The cost of my rifle and scope is equivalent to about 80 years of hunting licenses, so you can see how this might add up.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Wow, Really? 100%? Does that include the cost of the salaries of the fish and wildlife guys, too? Wow, hunting fees must be enormous!

 

It's not just hunting fees. Look up the Pittman-Robertson Act. Every time you buy hunting "stuff" a tax has been levied at the manufacturers level. The money collected goes back to the states to manage hunting and wildlife. The cost of my rifle and scope is equivalent to about 80 years of hunting licenses, so you can see how this might add up.

 

You must have bought your rifle from the military. Do you buy $800 toilet seats from them too?

[Macson]

WTF Porter. That deer has a bigger rack than that puny moose on the other pic!

[archenemy]

Arch, I don't mind tax dollars being used to fund programs that benefit hunters at all. I was just calling bullshit on the 100% claim.

 

At least hunted animals aren't tortured before they are killed.

It would be tough to measure exactly how much time and money from a salary got put to herds vs. to overall work. But I think that herd management does not only benefit hunters either (as JayB stated above). So it is kind of a wash. I think it is fair to say 100%; but you certainly have a point.

[olyclimber]

WTF Porter. That deer has a bigger rack than that puny moose on the other pic!

 

its a lot easily to bag deer up there than a moose.

 

how about this fish!:

 

[Macson]

You must have bought your rifle from the military. Do you buy $800 toilet seats from them too?

 

Have you priced a decent rifle scope lately? It's pretty easy to drop $1,200 or so, if you don't get a Bushnell from Walmart.

 

Edit: actually I just double checked the license fees and they're a bit higher than I remembered. Anyway, rifle and scope totaled just over $2k.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Macson

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You must have bought your rifle from the military. Do you buy $800 toilet seats from them too?

 

Have you priced a decent rifle scope lately? It's pretty easy to drop $1,200 or so, if you don't get a Bushnell from Walmart.

 

and the tax on your $1200 scope that went to game management equals 80 years of hunting licenses?

[Macson]

That's not what I said.

[sk]

not that I have anything against ass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

monkeys

 

i'm on the hunt i'm after you

cause i'm hungry like the wooooooolf

 

damn you, you know that song is stuck in my head now

[archenemy]

Actually, I think that is exactly what you said. But maybe I misunderstood...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That's not what I said.

 

yes it is:

 

The cost of my rifle and scope is equivalent to about 80 years of hunting licenses, so you can see how this might add up.

 

OK, scope+rifle. So tax on $2000 (or whatever you paid) equals 80 years of hunting licenses. Seems a bit off.

[Macson]

In that case, you'll have to remember that I'm Dutch and listen to what I mean, not what I say!

[lizard_brain]

WTF Porter. That deer has a bigger rack than that puny moose on the other pic!

 

its a lot easily to bag deer up there than a moose.

 

how about this fish!:

 

 

Goddam corn fed fish.

[sk]

You go out with a pack that weighs three times as much as the one you came in with. If that ain't a sport for the stupid, I don't know what is.

Back when I hunted, I didn't view it as a sport, no more so than growing my own vegatables was a sport. I wanted to know where my meat was coming from. It was work, that had some sporting elements (like using a trad bow). But I know a lot of hunters viewed it as a sport, which was part of the culture about the entire experience that I didn't like.

Well put. Although I am not against hunting as a sport, I do not personally hunt for sport. I do not consider my impetus for hunting superior than those who hunt for their own entertainment (I am, of course, against poaching). I started hunting b/c I couldn't afford meat any other way.

On the other hand, I fish and I pretty much only catch and release. In essence, I only fish for my own entertainment. This, on my mind, is ethically equivalent to those who hunt for pleasure. And yes, the animal is not killed--but I think the logic is about the same.

 

So, you spent $$$ for a tank of gas, a gun, ammo, licenses, those cool looking technicolor vests, etc...because you couldn't afford chicken at .99/lb?

 

Bwahhhh!

 

You po black chilluns sho kno howda make up dat shit talk....

Your version of hunting is pretty different than mine. I was given my first gun, I caught a ride with my hunting buddies, I didn't and don't dress up beyond the regulation $2.99 orange overvest, paid the $48 Idaho license fee and bought a $15 box of ammo and had meat for myself, my man, and my random guests for a year. My meat was clean and butchered by me in my clean kitchen. I stored it in a chest freezer I bought used for $25. And I know that the animal lived well and died quickly (b/c believe it or not, I actually like animals and don't want them to live in feed lots).

I know I will never change anyone's mind about hunting with my logic and my feelings behind my actions. But I do think it is important to discuss it--especially with people who "embrace diversity" and all that shit (that may not be you, but I'm just saying...). Different strokes for different folks.

 

no changing of minds here. I was raised in an area where hunting is the norm. ( was not encouraged to hunt as a girl, but that is a different subject all together) my dad hunted some. we were also able to buy a side of beef from friends who raised it and butchered it. i got to eat the same cow that i chased around in the fields when we couldn't ride the horses. my god father bow hunts. for any one who hasn't tried home grown or hunted meat, there really is a difference. i will eventually find my way back to my roots and hunt and raise my own beef and chickens. it is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when

[tvashtarkatena]

You go out with a pack that weighs three times as much as the one you came in with. If that ain't a sport for the stupid, I don't know what is.

Back when I hunted, I didn't view it as a sport, no more so than growing my own vegatables was a sport. I wanted to know where my meat was coming from. It was work, that had some sporting elements (like using a trad bow). But I know a lot of hunters viewed it as a sport, which was part of the culture about the entire experience that I didn't like.

 

 

Well put. Although I am not against hunting as a sport, I do not personally hunt for sport. I do not consider my impetus for hunting superior than those who hunt for their own entertainment (I am, of course, against poaching). I started hunting b/c I couldn't afford meat any other way.

On the other hand, I fish and I pretty much only catch and release. In essence, I only fish for my own entertainment. This, on my mind, is ethically equivalent to those who hunt for pleasure. And yes, the animal is not killed--but I think the logic is about the same.

 

So, you spent $$$ for a tank of gas, a gun, ammo, licenses, those cool looking technicolor vests, etc...because you couldn't afford chicken at .99/lb?

 

Bwahhhh!

 

You po black chilluns sho kno howda make up dat shit talk....

Your version of hunting is pretty different than mine. I was given my first gun, I caught a ride with my hunting buddies, I didn't and don't dress up beyond the regulation $2.99 orange overvest, paid the $48 Idaho license fee and bought a $15 box of ammo and had meat for myself, my man, and my random guests for a year. My meat was clean and butchered by me in my clean kitchen. I stored it in a chest freezer I bought used for $25. And I know that the animal lived well and died quickly (b/c believe it or not, I actually like animals and don't want them to live in feed lots).

I know I will never change anyone's mind about hunting with my logic and my feelings behind my actions. But I do think it is important to discuss it--especially with people who "embrace diversity" and all that shit (that may not be you, but I'm just saying...). Different strokes for different folks.

 

You also won't change anyone's mind about not being able to afford meat...which is as cheap as dirt.

 

You hunt because you want to, not for economic reasons. Which is fine...but your trying to bullshit us about your 'rural poverty/hunter gatherer' upbringing is a bit hard to swallow.

 

Edited July 20, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Macson]

I see, you think I meant equivalent in terms of the amount of money going to the state for wildlife management. But, I meant equivalent in absolute terms. Hunting stuff costs many times what licenses cost. I don't know what the tax rate is, but since the gear costs so much, you can see how the tax could add up quickly.

[olyclimber]

You go out with a pack that weighs three times as much as the one you came in with. If that ain't a sport for the stupid, I don't know what is.

Back when I hunted, I didn't view it as a sport, no more so than growing my own vegatables was a sport. I wanted to know where my meat was coming from. It was work, that had some sporting elements (like using a trad bow). But I know a lot of hunters viewed it as a sport, which was part of the culture about the entire experience that I didn't like.

 

 

Well put. Although I am not against hunting as a sport, I do not personally hunt for sport. I do not consider my impetus for hunting superior than those who hunt for their own entertainment (I am, of course, against poaching). I started hunting b/c I couldn't afford meat any other way.

On the other hand, I fish and I pretty much only catch and release. In essence, I only fish for my own entertainment. This, on my mind, is ethically equivalent to those who hunt for pleasure. And yes, the animal is not killed--but I think the logic is about the same.

 

So, you spent $$$ for a tank of gas, a gun, ammo, licenses, those cool looking technicolor vests, etc...because you couldn't afford chicken at .99/lb?

 

Bwahhhh!

 

You po black chilluns sho kno howda make up dat shit talk....

Your version of hunting is pretty different than mine. I was given my first gun, I caught a ride with my hunting buddies, I didn't and don't dress up beyond the regulation $2.99 orange overvest, paid the $48 Idaho license fee and bought a $15 box of ammo and had meat for myself, my man, and my random guests for a year. My meat was clean and butchered by me in my clean kitchen. I stored it in a chest freezer I bought used for $25. And I know that the animal lived well and died quickly (b/c believe it or not, I actually like animals and don't want them to live in feed lots).

I know I will never change anyone's mind about hunting with my logic and my feelings behind my actions. But I do think it is important to discuss it--especially with people who "embrace diversity" and all that shit (that may not be you, but I'm just saying...). Different strokes for different folks.

 

You also won't change anyone's mind about not being able to afford meat...which is as cheap as dirt.

 

You hunt because you want to, not for economic reasons. Which is fine...but your trying to bullshit us about your 'rural poverty/hunter gatherer' upbringing is a bit hard to swallow.

 

One of the best movies in the whole wide world is Deer Hunter.