If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegram)   21 years after PETA lost a lawsuit to prevent deer hunting, Massachusetts hunters have prevented an environmental disaster   (telegram.com) divider line 88
    More: Interesting, deer hunting, Massachusetts  
•       •       •

7760 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Dec 2012 at 10:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-17 02:01:27 PM  

theorellior: dittybopper: Same with the bison: They weren't wiped out because it was fun to hunt them, they were wiped out because their meat and hides were valuable, and it had a side benefit of screwing over the Plains Indians.

LOL WUT. You of all people should know about the wholesale slaughter of buffalo from railway cars for nothing more than horns and hides, if even that. It was sport hunting at its most wasteful.


No, it wasn't about sport hunting. It was unregulated market hunting.

What were those hides collected used for? Trophies? No. They were sold to tanneries to make leather. The bones were sold for fertilizer. The meat, when it was used, was either used to feed the hunters themselves (making them more self-sufficient, and thus making the cost per hide cheaper), or sold to such locals as there were.

It wasn't sport hunting. Sport hunting is about hunting because you enjoy it, not wholesale slaughter in the most inexpensive way possible (like recovering precious lead to remold bullets) to keep the per-hide cost down.

The bison were driven to near extinction not by sport hunters, but by market hunters.
 
2012-12-17 02:10:10 PM  

dittybopper: No, it wasn't about sport hunting. It was unregulated market hunting.


It was both. "Hunting by rail" was basically a rolling shooting gallery for Eastern dandies. And the sport hunters on those trains didn't take the bones or the meat. They just gunned 'em down and, if the train even stopped, took the head and hides for their wall.

dittybopper: Sport hunting is about hunting because you enjoy it, not wholesale slaughter in the most inexpensive way possible


Talk to Dick Cheney or Ted Nugent about their canned hunts. "Sport hunting" covers a lot of territory, from enjoyment of the chase to wanton bloodlust. And there's quite a bit of overlap with that and "market hunting".
 
2012-12-17 02:14:11 PM  
 
2012-12-17 02:53:24 PM  

theorellior: dittybopper: No, it wasn't about sport hunting. It was unregulated market hunting.

It was both. "Hunting by rail" was basically a rolling shooting gallery for Eastern dandies. And the sport hunters on those trains didn't take the bones or the meat. They just gunned 'em down and, if the train even stopped, took the head and hides for their wall.


No, it wasn't both. It was pretty much just market hunting. It was sustainable up until about 1870, when a new tanning process was invented that allowed the wholesale tanning of bison hides cheaply. Since it's cheaper just to shoot a wild bison and skin it then it is to raise cattle and skin them, there was a cheap source of raw material for the tanneries in the east, fed by the ever westward march of the railroads.


dittybopper: Sport hunting is about hunting because you enjoy it, not wholesale slaughter in the most inexpensive way possible

Talk to Dick Cheney or Ted Nugent about their canned hunts. "Sport hunting" covers a lot of territory, from enjoyment of the chase to wanton bloodlust. And there's quite a bit of overlap with that and "market hunting".


You know what? I don't care that much about canned hunting. Know why? Those animals are *OWNED*. They are property, no different than a cow or a chicken on a farm. I don't care if people want to hunt that way, it's their property, no more than I care if a farmer slaughters a chicken. Hell, you could make the argument that a game animal on even a small "canned" hunting preserve lives a better life than a factory-farmed animal.

The problem with your statement is you are using loaded language like "canned hunt" in an attempt to divide hunters.

Now, you've seen me before in these sorts of threads. You *KNOW* I'm about as fair-chase as they come. I only hunt by primitive means (flintlock longrifle, or wooden longbow). I don't use a tree stand. I walk in. Getting ready to hunt takes up a *LOT* of my time. But I don't denigrate those who can't or won't do as I do, for it is my path, and my path alone.

Having said that, I refuse to play along with the 'divide and conquer' strategy of denigrating this or that type of hunting. Unless it's flat out illegal in your jurisdiction, I don't have a problem with it.
 
2012-12-17 03:02:31 PM  

Skarekrough: PETA's role is largely to be unreasonable and garner press in order to raise awareness and cause discussion.


So, what, the Overton Window of animal rights? Even in that context, I still think they do more harm than good.
 
2012-12-17 03:17:10 PM  

dittybopper: The problem with your statement is you are using loaded language like "canned hunt" in an attempt to divide hunters.


I'm not dividing hunters, I'm commenting on their motives for hunting. Their behavior has already divided them into groups. I have no problem with hunting as an activity. I can understand hunting for hunger, hunting to commune with nature, hunting for the biggest antlers. I don't understand blowing away birds released from cages. It puts paid to the concept of the "romance" of hunting. It sounds like as decadent an action as you're gonna get, paying big money to blow away tame animals on a lark. It sounds like not-so-sublimated bloodlust, packaged neatly and conveniently.

You can rail at me for dividing and conquering hunters, but I'm not advocating outlawing hunting, marking hunters with a scarlet H, or dousing them with blood as they walk around in their blaze orange. I'm commenting on what I consider to be a lame and bankrupt hunting practice.
 
2012-12-17 03:32:39 PM  
Deer hunt linked to healthier Quabbin

Deer Season! Quabbin Season! Deer Season! Quabbin Season!

/What the hell is a Quabbin? Some kind of quail / rabbit / human hybrid?
 
2012-12-17 03:49:41 PM  
I live in Massachusetts and don't mind the hunters being out there for a couple of weeks.
 
2012-12-17 03:50:25 PM  

theorellior: I don't understand blowing away birds released from cages. It puts paid to the concept of the "romance" of hunting. It sounds like as decadent an action as you're gonna get, paying big money to blow away tame animals on a lark. It sounds like not-so-sublimated bloodlust, packaged neatly and conveniently.


Some people, especially people who make a lot of money, don't necessarily have the time that you and I might have to go hunting. They trade the time that you or I might put into scouting an area for money to have someone take care of that.

Maybe their vacation time is limited during normal hunting seasons.

Maybe they don't have access to hunting land: Around me, people won't let you hunt their land unless they know you.

In some cases, it may be more about the *LACK* of money: They can't afford an African safari, but a Kudu hunt or Zebra hunt on a ranch in the US is within their means.

Like I said, all kinds of valid reasons why one might chose to do that. If my circumstances were different, I'd probably do it myself.
 
2012-12-17 04:02:03 PM  
Passenger pigeons, comment...............
 
2012-12-17 04:26:11 PM  
"Deer hunt linked to healthier Quabbin"

Doctors recommend that your get your quabbin examined annually.
 
2012-12-17 04:39:08 PM  

dittybopper: Like I said, all kinds of valid reasons why one might chose to do that. If my circumstances were different, I'd probably do it myself.


Well, there you go. Hunting to me would be all about communing with nature and filling my chest freezer. I have no taste for a canned hunt. And there are degrees of canning, if you will: a kudu or zebra hunt on a ranch is definitely a little less tinny than Dick Cheney blowing away tame pigeons.
 
2012-12-17 04:42:32 PM  

uttertosh: Richard C Stanford: First, First! Oh my god my life is complete. I'm first on a thread. Ahhhhhhhahhahahahahaha!!!!!

I feel..... Stupid.

Who ARE you?


The guy that is going to have the smallest "days since account creation/ignored" ratio ever
 
2012-12-17 05:20:00 PM  

dittybopper: yves0010: know that, I meant the idea that they only want it as a trophy and leave the rest of the animal to waste. I have heard a few hunters that do this over at my local hunting store. Hunt a buck for its horns and not use the meat. Damn it, deer is so good!

Well, from a "preservation of the species" standpoint, one is no worse than the other.

I don't like the "I eat it, so it's OK" argument, because many species were hunted into extinction by subsistence hunting.

You see, there are 3 main kinds of hunting:

1. Subsistence hunting. This is hunting for food, and for other uses like shelter and the like, without an economic motive.

2. Market hunting. This is hunting so that you can sell the meat, or the hide, or the tusks, or whatever, for profit.

3. Sport hunting. This is hunting primarily for enjoyment. You may eat what you kill, but not necessarily.

Of the 3 main kinds of hunting, the only one that hasn't resulted in extinctions is sport hunting. That's because sport hunters want to keep on hunting, and if you wipe out all the game, you can't hunt anymore. It was unregulated market and subsistence hunting in the early US that led to the population of Whitetail deer being so low in 1900. Same with the bison: They weren't wiped out because it was fun to hunt them, they were wiped out because their meat and hides were valuable, and it had a side benefit of screwing over the Plains Indians. Similarly with the tiger: To the extent that hunting was a problem, it wasn't *SPORT* hunters. Chauncy Uppercrust sitting on a howdah with a double rifle wasn't responsible for their decline in India. It was locals hunting them to protect themselves and their livestock (subsistence hunting, albeit one step removed), and to sell their hides and other parts to fashion models and flaccid Chinese men (market hunting).

Fact is, regulated sport hunting almost always results in an *INCREASE* in targeted game, not a decrease. At least, that's been the experience here ...


That is bullshiat. No species in the history of life has EVER been made extinct by either sport or subsistinance hunting. The ONLY type of hunting that has ever made a species extinct is market hunting.
Also, PeTA gets most of the credit any time someone mentions animal rights. The fact is that PeTA is the assclown of the animal rights movement. They attention whore while the really dangerous groups such as the HSUS and the ELF/ALF are out destroying and trying to get laws sneaked through. The HSUS is the big enemy to all people who consume animal products. They opperate no shelters, they only piggyback the name of the local shelters and try to make people think they are helping the animals. The fact is that the vast majority of the money stupid, vapid college girls give to PeTA and HSUS go either to advertising or the high salaries of the top people in these groups.
 
2012-12-17 05:37:47 PM  

foxtail: No species in the history of life has EVER been made extinct by either sport or subsistinance hunting.


Really?

Unless you want to try to defend the argument that the market for giant sloth pelts was at an all-time high 'back in the day'.

Lol
 
2012-12-17 05:55:54 PM  
Unfortunately, we can not prove that one way or another. What can be said for sure is that for a group of cavemen with sticks with sharp rocks on the end to drive a species like that extinct, the species had to be on the precipice to begin with.The number of cavemen that the same scientists theorize existed at the time of the megafauna would be almost impossible to wipe out anybut small local populations. The vast expanses of land the animals lived on would have made it impossible to kill everything off.

This is of course my and a few other's opinion. There is no way to conclusively prove either side.
 
2012-12-17 06:36:58 PM  

Glitchwerks: You know, if all the apex predators hadn't been killed off, this wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.


I remember discussing exactly this subject in school (I graduated high school in 1977, get off my lawn). They had killed off all the wolves to "protect the deer". That winter the deer almost starved completely out of the park because of massive over-population.
 
2012-12-17 06:38:21 PM  

Swoop1809: My girlfriend's dad didnt get a deer this year, which is very sad news because that means I wont be getting any deer jerky for Christmas :(

And as someone who lived in rural Ohio for most of my life, I wish there werent so many deer here. When it's not hunting season you hit them with your car. When it is hunting season the state fills up with assholes from out of state who hunt dangerously on other people's land. F those guys.


My brother bagged a deer, so we're having venison roast for christmas dinner.
 
2012-12-17 06:38:22 PM  

foxtail: This is of course my and a few other's opinion. There is no way to conclusively prove either side.


Then, by your own assertion, we can prove that you assertion that 'No species in the history of life has EVER been made extinct by either sport or subsistinance hunting' is unfounded.
 
2012-12-17 08:37:36 PM  

SewerSquirrels: dittybopper: yves0010: DubyaHater: Glitchwerks: You know, if all the apex predators hadn't been killed off, this wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

But we need the fur for rugs and animal heads to hang on the wall. I need people to see what a man I am for hunting a wolf/panther/etc with a rifle and scope.

I know many hunters who do not hunt with a gun but rather use a bow. And they use the entire animal. Not just the head and fur. But they use the meat to eat. Not all hunters do trophy hunting.

Actually, trophy hunting is more ecologically defensible than all the other forms of hunting.

The guy who won't shoot less than an 8-pointer because "It's too small" likely has a better idea of how balanced the environment he hunts in is than the guy who shoots the first legal deer to cross his path on opening day so he can fill his freezer.

I don't hunt because, irony being what it is, I suspect that I'd eventually shoot Dick Cheney in the face, but from my loose understanding of hunting in MN, they only offer a limited number of tags by region depending on the current population of critters in that region.

So it doesn't really matter if you are filling your freezer or pissing your spouse off with a new decoration for the living room, hunting isn't going to result in scorched earth of the critter population either way.

Wouldn't the trophy hunters over time eliminate the best genes in the deer population?


I grew up in northern Wisconsin, and the DNR there uses the same sort of policy regarding hunting permits, so as to avoid over-hunting a particular area. After several particularly hard winters, the DNR cut the number of permits issued by 50% in some areas... and not many hunters complained, they just went and got permits for areas that didn't have the restrictions, and still got their deer. Yes, we still had assholes (usually from out-of-state, commonly from Illinois) who just blasted away at anything that moved (with the usual entirely predictable results of either cars, cows, or other hunters getting shot), but the deer population stayed pretty healthy, and the resident tree-huggers (99% of them being from out-of-state, and 99% of the out-of-staters being students at what us locals called Treehugger U, better known as Northland College) at least had some sense and stayed way the hell away from the armed local rednecks.
 
2012-12-17 08:46:25 PM  

Spade: Glitchwerks: You know, if all the apex predators hadn't been killed off, this wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

I totally agree that we should bring wolves, bears, and mountain lions back to suburban areas of the east coast.


Too late, there are already apex predators in the 'burbs. Some of them just happen to be rather small.

news.nationalgeographic.com (Hot like a Naga viper.)
 
2012-12-17 08:50:27 PM  
The article makes a point of showing how the biggest and strongest deer are the ones being killed by hunters, like it's a good thing. It's not. What if we introduced a system of Eugenics were we killed everyone who had a high IQ and no disease? How would mankind do in the long haul? Hunters who hunt for meat are fine with smaller deer, even prefer it because the meat is better and they don't hurt the deer genetically. Hunter who go out for trophies are assholes who do nothing but harm.
 
2012-12-17 09:55:02 PM  

foxtail: No species in the history of life has EVER been made extinct by either sport or subsistinance hunting.


Dodos, Great Auks, most of the giant tortoises from the islands in the Indian Ocean?
 
2012-12-17 10:36:34 PM  
It's a shame we can't cull the human herd. Far, far more of a danger to the ecosystem.
 
2012-12-17 11:07:12 PM  

LeftOfLiberal: Hunter who go out for trophies are assholes who do nothing but harm.


Not really, typically the larger deer are the older ones that have already passed their genes on. By the fact that they were older, they have likely passed on more genes than any of their smaller brethren. I see no problem with that.
 
2012-12-17 11:16:20 PM  

HeadLever: I see no problem with that.


I see a problem with someone who wants to kill the most magnificent creatures so they can cut off their heads and stick them on their wall. But that's just me, I guess.
 
2012-12-17 11:23:56 PM  

Nogale: Isn't PETA classed as a terror organization? I'd like to start a viral campaign alerting people to the fact that if they donate to PETA, they will be on record as donating to a terrorist group. Forever. The Internet never forgets.

Where do they get their funds from?


Have at it.
 
2012-12-17 11:36:57 PM  
This is why I don't hunt.

wheresrooster.com
 
2012-12-18 02:59:18 AM  

whatshisname: foxtail: No species in the history of life has EVER been made extinct by either sport or subsistinance hunting.

Dodos, Great Auks, most of the giant tortoises from the islands in the Indian Ocean?


I havn't seen any Mammoths lately either.
 
2012-12-18 07:46:34 AM  

RubberBandMan: Passenger pigeons, comment...............


Killed by market hunters. They were a cheap source of protein for slaves and servants.
 
2012-12-18 07:54:05 AM  

whatshisname: foxtail: No species in the history of life has EVER been made extinct by either sport or subsistinance hunting.

Dodos, Great Auks, most of the giant tortoises from the islands in the Indian Ocean?


Foxtail is wrong: Subsistence hunting did result in the extinction of species, Dodos are an example, as are giant tortoises: In fact they were collected by sailors live because they could live for a long time without food or water, providing fresh meat for long sea voyages, something sorely missed when all you've had is bully beef and salt pork.

Great Auks seem to have been more along the lines of market hunting, but with some subsistence hunting also.
 
2012-12-18 08:09:43 AM  

foxtail: That is bullshiat. No species in the history of life has EVER been made extinct by either sport or subsistinance hunting. The ONLY type of hunting that has ever made a species extinct is market hunting.


You are wrong.

Species have gone extinct due to subsistence hunting:

upload.wikimedia.org

That's pretty damning evidence, but not conclusive, of course. Don't forget, when you view North America when Europeans showed up, there were thousands and thousands of years for man and nature to reach an equilibrium of sorts. That's because the first Native Americans had killed off the "easy to kill" prey species (and the predator species that preyed on them also would have died out), leaving just those best able to survive against humans. That's why there weren't any stupid, slow, large animals in North America: We had eaten them all.

But we don't have to look that far back to see species that were driven to extinction by subsistence hunting: We've seen it in recorded history. The Stellar's Sea Cow is an example.
 
2012-12-18 10:06:26 AM  

whatshisname: HeadLever: I see no problem with that.

I see a problem with someone who wants to kill the most magnificent creatures so they can cut off their heads and stick them on their wall. But that's just me, I guess.


As long as they eat the meat or donate it (waste of the meat is illegal), I don't have a problem with it. You are mosly constructing strawmen arguments to make a point. In the real world your concocted arguments are really not that big of a problem. Most of the time when your scenario happens, it is from poachers that don't want to hang around long enough to process the meat. I think that we all have issues with that.
 
2012-12-18 01:16:09 PM  

HeadLever: Most of the time when your scenario happens, it is from poachers that don't want to hang around long enough to process the meat. I think that we all have issues with that.


Yeah, I'm sure the great white hunters are leaving Africa with a plane load of elephant meat. Are they hunting it for food or subsistence? No, they're hunting it because they want an umbrella stand. Same goes for the people hunting the biggest deer in the forest - they're more interested in a 47 point buck head than 200 lbs of venison.

And a strawman is something else entirely.
 
2012-12-18 02:48:24 PM  

dittybopper: yves0010: know that, I meant the idea that they only want it as a trophy and leave the rest of the animal to waste. I have heard a few hunters that do this over at my local hunting store. Hunt a buck for its horns and not use the meat. Damn it, deer is so good!

Well, from a "preservation of the species" standpoint, one is no worse than the other.

I don't like the "I eat it, so it's OK" argument, because many species were hunted into extinction by subsistence hunting.

You see, there are 3 main kinds of hunting:

1. Subsistence hunting. This is hunting for food, and for other uses like shelter and the like, without an economic motive.

2. Market hunting. This is hunting so that you can sell the meat, or the hide, or the tusks, or whatever, for profit.

3. Sport hunting. This is hunting primarily for enjoyment. You may eat what you kill, but not necessarily.

Of the 3 main kinds of hunting, the only one that hasn't resulted in extinctions is sport hunting. That's because sport hunters want to keep on hunting, and if you wipe out all the game, you can't hunt anymore. It was unregulated market and subsistence hunting in the early US that led to the population of Whitetail deer being so low in 1900. Same with the bison: They weren't wiped out because it was fun to hunt them, they were wiped out because their meat and hides were valuable, and it had a side benefit of screwing over the Plains Indians. Similarly with the tiger: To the extent that hunting was a problem, it wasn't *SPORT* hunters. Chauncy Uppercrust sitting on a howdah with a double rifle wasn't responsible for their decline in India. It was locals hunting them to protect themselves and their livestock (subsistence hunting, albeit one step removed), and to sell their hides and other parts to fashion models and flaccid Chinese men (market hunting).

Fact is, regulated sport hunting almost always results in an *INCREASE* in targeted game, not a decrease. At least, that's been the experience here ...


...except for passenger pigeons, I suppose. Then again, who knew they needed giant orgies to get their freak on?
 
2012-12-18 09:57:15 PM  

whatshisname: Yeah, I'm sure the great white hunters are leaving Africa with a plane load of elephant meat.


Oh so we are moving from a generalized 'tropy hunter' to a safari hunter? Those goalpost heavy?
 
2012-12-18 10:09:28 PM  

HeadLever: whatshisname: Yeah, I'm sure the great white hunters are leaving Africa with a plane load of elephant meat.

Oh so we are moving from a generalized 'tropy hunter' to a safari hunter? Those goalpost heavy?


What's the difference? (Other than disposable income.)
 
2012-12-19 12:44:58 PM  

whatshisname: HeadLever: whatshisname: Yeah, I'm sure the great white hunters are leaving Africa with a plane load of elephant meat.

Oh so we are moving from a generalized 'tropy hunter' to a safari hunter? Those goalpost heavy?

What's the difference? (Other than disposable income.)


One is a generalize hunter than could be anywhere at anytime. The second one is a specific hunter that has a boatload of money, a passport, goes to a specific place to hunt specific safari animals.

Other than that, nothing.
 
Displayed 38 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report