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.

(Slate)   Meet William Hornaday, who after spending the first part of his life traveling the globe and killing just about every exotic animal he could find, helped found the American conservation and environmentalist movements   (slate.com) divider line 138
    More: Ironic, William Hornaday, Americans, exotic animals, conservations, Bronx Zoo, pinnipeds, environmentalists, Bass Ale  
•       •       •

3968 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2013 at 1:29 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-08 03:04:13 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: dittybopper


Ain't the same.


Not the same? OF COURSE it's not the same. That's the point.

Going on a safari to Africa with the express purpose of killing exotic animals appears to be the antithesis of conservatism and tips toward selfishness: every exotic animal that is taken and taxidermied is one that someone else won't get to see in the wild. Not much conservation going on there.

I understand the need to keep deer population down to ensure there is enough food to support them, and obviously there are pest and nuisance animals, but the rare animal aspect is what bothers me. That's where I would prefer to see people just take a picture.


I think you may be confusing exotic animals with endangered animals.  Kudu and Spring bok are exotic animals to us, but in Africa, they are as common as, and at times more plentiful than, Whitetail deer here.  Most exotic animal hunts are for those deer type animals, and not big cats and elephants (though those hunts do happen too, just not as frequently).

Also, there are endangered species hunts (like certain breeds of Rhino) that you can go on, but those hunts entail using a tranquilizer rifles, and include an environmental scientist who uses the time when the hunter is getting his pic taken next to the unconscious animal to take measurements and tagging the animals for further research.

I understand the polarizing aspects of hunting, but I truly think egos and emotions get in the way on this conversation on both sides.  Outdoor sportsmen tend to do way more for conservation of the environment, even if it's just by purchasing a license, than most members of environmental groups do (PETA, and Greenpeace for example).
 
2013-05-08 03:04:13 PM
 
2013-05-08 03:06:05 PM
I think you're obligated to be a trophy hunter if you're born with the name "Horn-a-day".
 
2013-05-08 03:12:02 PM

dittybopper: stir22: lulz...you are so right.  anybody who would look through a telescopic sight at an animal hundreds of yards away and kill it just to have it stuffed must have born with an incredibly small penis.

*TWEET*

Violation of Markley's Law.  Ten yard penalty and loss of argument.


really?  THAT is what you're going with?  again, lulz...tell you what.  go after a predator with a spear...go get your grizzly bear with, hell, you can even use a bow and arrow...do that and then i'll listen about how big a man you are.

a
 
2013-05-08 03:18:04 PM

ghettodwarf


I think you may be confusing exotic animals with endangered animals. Kudu and Spring bok are exotic animals to us, but in Africa, they are as common as, and at times more plentiful than, Whitetail deer here. Most exotic animal hunts are for those deer type animals, and not big cats and elephants (though those hunts do happen too, just not as frequently).


Appreciated, but the post to which I was responding upthread mentioned elephants and leopards so that's where my head was.


Also, there are endangered species hunts (like certain breeds of Rhino) that you can go on, but those hunts entail using a tranquilizer rifles, and include an environmental scientist who uses the time when the hunter is getting his pic taken next to the unconscious animal to take measurements and tagging the animals for further research.


Interesting - I learned something!


I understand the polarizing aspects of hunting, but I truly think egos and emotions get in the way on this conversation on both sides. Outdoor sportsmen tend to do way more for conservation of the environment, even if it's just by purchasing a license, than most members of environmental groups do (PETA, and Greenpeace for example).


I have no problem with hunting animals that are common, as long as the hunters are competent enough to make humane kills. Hunting something that is not common (and becoming less so) doesn't seem like conservation to me, but I see your point about licenses and such.

The whole PETA-Greenpeace thing is a discussion for another day. :-)
 
2013-05-08 03:22:44 PM

stir22: dittybopper: stir22: lulz...you are so right.  anybody who would look through a telescopic sight at an animal hundreds of yards away and kill it just to have it stuffed must have born with an incredibly small penis.

*TWEET*

Violation of Markley's Law.  Ten yard penalty and loss of argument.

really?  THAT is what you're going with?  again, lulz...tell you what.  go after a predator with a spear...go get your grizzly bear with, hell, you can even use a bow and arrow...do that and then i'll listen about how big a man you are.

a


You haven't been reading my posts, have you?
 
2013-05-08 03:28:17 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: I have no problem with hunting animals that are common, as long as the hunters are competent enough to make humane kills. Hunting something that is not common (and becoming less so) doesn't seem like conservation to me, but I see your point about licenses and such.


At the turn of the last century, whitetails deer, black bears, and wild turkeys were all uncommon in most states, largely because of unregulated market and subsistence hunting.  It was sport hunters who pressed for the limited seasons and bag limits.

Because of that, it's now thought that there are more deer in North American *NOW* than in pre-Columbian times.
 
2013-05-08 03:29:27 PM

dittybopper: DeathCipris: dittybopper: DeathCipris: dittybopper: DeathCipris: Damn, Squanto!

OH, and the name's not Squanto.  It's Magua.  Le Renard if you're nasty.

[img.fark.net image 850x723]

I totally just said whatever came to my mind and meant no offense. Your equipment certainly looked Native American in origin.

You don't know who Magua is?

No idea. I was just CYA in case you were an angry Native American or something. You hunt with home-made flint knapped arrow tips and a black power muzzle loading rifle. I am not that moronic to piss you off lest I wish my own death...:D

This is Magua, as portrayed by Wes Studi in the film "Last of the Mohicans":

[24.media.tumblr.com image 400x510]

He is one of the all-time bad-ass bad guys.


I still want to know how they canoed from Lake George into the Hudson....
 
2013-05-08 03:30:41 PM

stir22: dittybopper: stir22: lulz...you are so right.  anybody who would look through a telescopic sight at an animal hundreds of yards away and kill it just to have it stuffed must have born with an incredibly small penis.

*TWEET*

Violation of Markley's Law.  Ten yard penalty and loss of argument.

really?  THAT is what you're going with?  again, lulz...tell you what.  go after a predator with a spear...go get your grizzly bear with, hell, you can even use a bow and arrow...do that and then i'll listen about how big a man you are.

a


New around here eh ?
 
2013-05-08 03:31:55 PM
We were dirt poor in East Texas so we supplemented food by hunting and fishing. So I am of a dim view on sport hunting that does not utilize most of the animal. We just ran across to many carcasses left to rot after they removed the head or horns,

That being said I can see how sport hunter would invest in conserving animals so they can keep doing what they like.

//kudos dittybopper! I know some guys that hunt traditional long bow and that is some serious skill.
 
2013-05-08 03:37:36 PM

LordJiro: dittybopper: It's *NOT* ironic, it's *EXPECTED*.

Sport hunters were the original conservationists.

There are 3 kinds of hunting:

1. Subsistence hunting.  This is hunting for food, ie., in order to survive.  It can also include hunting things that are eating your crops or your children.

2. Market hunting:  This is hunting for money.  It can be legal or illegal (poaching), and it can even be to collect a government provided bounty, but the motivation is cash.

3. Sport hunting.  This is hunting because you enjoy the challenge and the chase making yourself feel better by killing big, 'scary' animals.  You may eat the animal afterwards, but the primary purpose is because you enjoy it. are insecure.

FTFY. Put away the high-powered rifles and shiat, take down an elephant or leopard with a farking spear, and THEN I'll believe it's "about the challenge".


Actually go hunting in Africa and then if you say it isn't a challenge then I will bow to your opinion. I have not been hunting in Africa, but shooting a deer in Alabama is plenty challenging enough for me, A rogue elephant or tiger would have to be worse.
 
2013-05-08 03:40:41 PM

Mazzic518: I still want to know how they canoed from Lake George into the Hudson....


Heh.

I live in that area, and it's not possible.

I just kind of think to myself "After the Bloody Pond ambush, they head west and the canoes are on the Hudson."
 
2013-05-08 03:42:43 PM

Mazzic518: stir22: dittybopper: stir22: lulz...you are so right.  anybody who would look through a telescopic sight at an animal hundreds of yards away and kill it just to have it stuffed must have born with an incredibly small penis.

*TWEET*

Violation of Markley's Law.  Ten yard penalty and loss of argument.

really?  THAT is what you're going with?  again, lulz...tell you what.  go after a predator with a spear...go get your grizzly bear with, hell, you can even use a bow and arrow...do that and then i'll listen about how big a man you are.

a

New around here eh ?


I wonder if he'll let me use my atlatl.
 
2013-05-08 03:50:19 PM

IronOcelot: We were dirt poor in East Texas so we supplemented food by hunting and fishing. So I am of a dim view on sport hunting that does not utilize most of the animal. We just ran across to many carcasses left to rot after they removed the head or horns,

That being said I can see how sport hunter would invest in conserving animals so they can keep doing what they like.

//kudos dittybopper! I know some guys that hunt traditional long bow and that is some serious skill.



That *SOUNDS* bad, and it is for that individual animal, but if that sort of thing results in habitat preservation and overall increases in game animals, then it's a net positive from the standpoint of conservation.  I know it doesn't *FEEL* that way, but really, it is.

And don't forget, the habitat preserved also benefits non-game species also.
 
2013-05-08 03:53:48 PM

dittybopper: Mazzic518: I still want to know how they canoed from Lake George into the Hudson....

Heh.

I live in that area, and it's not possible.

I just kind of think to myself "After the Bloody Pond ambush, they head west and the canoes are on the Hudson."


I know I live 13 miles from Fort William Henry and two miles from Fort Edward pretty much on their route lol

/sorry for the threadjack
//I also hunt for the sport of it but I also eat anything I kill
 
2013-05-08 03:55:55 PM

DeathCipris: dittybopper: DeathCipris: dittybopper: DeathCipris: Damn, Squanto!

OH, and the name's not Squanto.  It's Magua.  Le Renard if you're nasty.

[img.fark.net image 850x723]

I totally just said whatever came to my mind and meant no offense. Your equipment certainly looked Native American in origin.

You don't know who Magua is?

No idea. I was just CYA in case you were an angry Native American or something. You hunt with home-made flint knapped arrow tips and a black power muzzle loading rifle. I am not that moronic to piss you off lest I wish my own death...:D


This amused me. It honestly did. Srsly. Smile on my face and everything, only topped by my reaction of seeing an animated cat knead the hair of Ron Swanson.
 
2013-05-08 03:56:13 PM

dittybopper: Englebert Slaptyback: I have no problem with hunting animals that are common, as long as the hunters are competent enough to make humane kills. Hunting something that is not common (and becoming less so) doesn't seem like conservation to me, but I see your point about licenses and such.

At the turn of the last century, whitetails deer, black bears, and wild turkeys were all uncommon in most states, largely because of unregulated market and subsistence hunting.  It was sport hunters who pressed for the limited seasons and bag limits.

Because of that, it's now thought that there are more deer in North American *NOW* than in pre-Columbian times.


I don't know about bears and turkeys, but the explosion in the white tail population has far more to do with the massive switch of environment from woods and wild to agriculture and open space vastly increasing their habitat and food supply.  And it's not just speculated, there are counts and there is no doubt that the deer population is on the order of tens times what it was at the turn of the 19th century.  (yes yes citation needed I know, I don't have time, look it up yourself).
 
2013-05-08 03:58:23 PM

BlueDuckFarker: Sounds like Teddy Roosevelt to me.


According to the information at the National Park that's named for him, actually he became a serious conservationist after his wife died and he retreated to that region to grieve. IIRC something about he realized how quickly such unique landscapes (it's very like the badlands) would disappear if not preserved by law for future generations to enjoy. I recall an article on here a while back about how developers are trying to build McMansions very close to places like Arches NP and running into protests and such. TR is my hero for establishing so many parks and doing as much as he did...
 
2013-05-08 04:01:52 PM

uncleacid: [www.adweek.com image 484x272]


Still can't believe that sonofabiatch wears a damn Nazi Totenkopf SS badge.
Those people were the vilest, most evil bastards on the planet.
 
2013-05-08 04:07:03 PM

LordJiro: dittybopper: It's *NOT* ironic, it's *EXPECTED*.

Sport hunters were the original conservationists.

There are 3 kinds of hunting:

1. Subsistence hunting.  This is hunting for food, ie., in order to survive.  It can also include hunting things that are eating your crops or your children.

2. Market hunting:  This is hunting for money.  It can be legal or illegal (poaching), and it can even be to collect a government provided bounty, but the motivation is cash.

3. Sport hunting.  This is hunting because you enjoy the challenge and the chase making yourself feel better by killing big, 'scary' animals.  You may eat the animal afterwards, but the primary purpose is because you enjoy it. are insecure.

FTFY. Put away the high-powered rifles and shiat, take down an elephant or leopard with a farking spear, and THEN I'll believe it's "about the challenge".


You sound fat
 
2013-05-08 04:15:28 PM

Mazzic518: I know I live 13 miles from Fort William Henry and two miles from Fort Edward pretty much on their route lol


That doesn't really work, because I'm 8.8 miles from FWH and just 4  miles from FE, and I'm within walking distance of Cooper's Cave (closer to the actual cave than the ale company).
 
2013-05-08 04:22:27 PM

dittybopper: It's *NOT* ironic, it's *EXPECTED*.

Sport hunters were the original conservationists.

There are 3 kinds of hunting:

1. Subsistence hunting.  This is hunting for food, ie., in order to survive.  It can also include hunting things that are eating your crops or your children.

2. Market hunting:  This is hunting for money.  It can be legal or illegal (poaching), and it can even be to collect a government provided bounty, but the motivation is cash.

3. Sport hunting.  This is hunting because you enjoy the challenge and the chase.  You may eat the animal afterwards, but the primary purpose is because you enjoy it.

The first two have resulted in the extinction and near extinction of countless animals.

The last one, sport hunting, has a track record of *INCREASING* the numbers of game animals.   The reason for this apparent paradox is that sport hunters want to keep on doing what they like, and they will invest time and money into things like habitat protection to ensure that they continue to have animals to hunt.



This is the biggest bullshiat I have ever seen.  It's not the sport hunters that increase the numbers, it's the regulation of sports hunters that preserves the numbers of game animals.  If there were no hunting permits required, most "sport hunters" wouldn't pay shiat toward conservation and the woods would be picked clean in a season.
 
2013-05-08 04:27:38 PM

rkettens: I don't know about bears and turkeys, but the explosion in the white tail population has far more to do with the massive switch of environment from woods and wild to agriculture and open space vastly increasing their habitat and food supply.  And it's not just speculated, there are counts and there is no doubt that the deer population is on the order of tens times what it was at the turn of the 19th century.  (yes yes citation needed I know, I don't have time, look it up yourself).


No, the explosion in their numbers coincides with the banning of commercial hunting of whitetails.
 
2013-05-08 04:29:47 PM

dittybopper: Mazzic518: I know I live 13 miles from Fort William Henry and two miles from Fort Edward pretty much on their route lol

That doesn't really work, because I'm 8.8 miles from FWH and just 4  miles from FE, and I'm within walking distance of Cooper's Cave (closer to the actual cave than the ale company).


I was kinda referring to the route between the two forts... and I can see Cooper's Cave Ale from my work lol I also always found it amusing how small the actual cave is compared to the movie.
 
2013-05-08 04:32:55 PM

manimal2878: This is the biggest bullshiat I have ever seen.  It's not the sport hunters that increase the numbers, it's the regulation of sports hunters that preserves the numbers of game animals.  If there were no hunting permits required, most "sport hunters" wouldn't pay shiat toward conservation and the woods would be picked clean in a season.


Who do you think pressed for things like limited seasons, bag limits, permits, and the banning of commercial hunting (ie., market hunting)?

Sport hunters, that's who.

That's because as a group, they wanted to continue hunting, and they knew if they didn't act to protect the game they hunted, there would be none left.

Also, I disagree with you:  Subsistence hunters would, as would market hunters, but if all hunting regulations were repealed, it wouldn't be the trophy hunters out killing all the animals, it would be the people feeding their family for a couple weeks for a $1 bullet and it would be the guys selling venison to frou-frou NYC restaurants and buckskin to clothing manufacturers.
 
2013-05-08 04:34:04 PM

Mazzic518: dittybopper: Mazzic518: I know I live 13 miles from Fort William Henry and two miles from Fort Edward pretty much on their route lol

That doesn't really work, because I'm 8.8 miles from FWH and just 4  miles from FE, and I'm within walking distance of Cooper's Cave (closer to the actual cave than the ale company).

I was kinda referring to the route between the two forts... and I can see Cooper's Cave Ale from my work lol I also always found it amusing how small the actual cave is compared to the movie.


I'm going to pass by your work:  littlebopper has a game at East Field tonight, and I'm one of the coaches.
 
2013-05-08 04:35:12 PM

Mazzic518: I can see Cooper's Cave Ale from my work


I like the vaginal entrance.
 
2013-05-08 04:37:11 PM

manimal2878: This is the biggest bullshiat I have ever seen.  It's not the sport hunters that increase the numbers, it's the regulation of sports hunters that preserves the numbers of game animals.  If there were no hunting permits required, most "sport hunters" wouldn't pay shiat toward conservation and the woods would be picked clean in a season.


Yes.  It was PETA that did it all.
 
2013-05-08 04:38:03 PM

dittybopper: Mazzic518: I can see Cooper's Cave Ale from my work

I like the vaginal entrance.


LMAO I am glad I am not the only one that thinks that.... I swear that place ever goes out of business it will be converted into a strip club lol...

/ending threadjack
 
2013-05-08 04:41:57 PM

Mazzic518: dittybopper: Mazzic518: I can see Cooper's Cave Ale from my work

I like the vaginal entrance.

LMAO I am glad I am not the only one that thinks that.... I swear that place ever goes out of business it will be converted into a strip club lol...

/ending threadjack


My family is friends with the guy who owns it.  He's a big muzzleloader (or at least was).  I don't know him that well, but every couple of years I get a couple bombers of Radeau Red, and perhaps a Sagamore Stout.
 
2013-05-08 04:42:17 PM

dittybopper: manimal2878: This is the biggest bullshiat I have ever seen.  It's not the sport hunters that increase the numbers, it's the regulation of sports hunters that preserves the numbers of game animals.  If there were no hunting permits required, most "sport hunters" wouldn't pay shiat toward conservation and the woods would be picked clean in a season.

Who do you think pressed for things like limited seasons, bag limits, permits, and the banning of commercial hunting (ie., market hunting)?

Sport hunters, that's who.

That's because as a group, they wanted to continue hunting, and they knew if they didn't act to protect the game they hunted, there would be none left.

Also, I disagree with you:  Subsistence hunters would, as would market hunters, but if all hunting regulations were repealed, it wouldn't be the trophy hunters out killing all the animals, it would be the people feeding their family for a couple weeks for a $1 bullet and it would be the guys selling venison to frou-frou NYC restaurants and buckskin to clothing manufacturers.


The people most critical of abusive hunters or poor game management are other hunters. Want to start a fist fight? find a group of hunters at a club and laugh about how you keep losing wounded animals.
 
2013-05-08 04:44:13 PM

dittybopper: manimal2878: This is the biggest bullshiat I have ever seen.  It's not the sport hunters that increase the numbers, it's the regulation of sports hunters that preserves the numbers of game animals.  If there were no hunting permits required, most "sport hunters" wouldn't pay shiat toward conservation and the woods would be picked clean in a season.

Who do you think pressed for things like limited seasons, bag limits, permits, and the banning of commercial hunting (ie., market hunting)?

Sport hunters, that's who.

That's because as a group, they wanted to continue hunting, and they knew if they didn't act to protect the game they hunted, there would be none left.

Also, I disagree with you:  Subsistence hunters would, as would market hunters, but if all hunting regulations were repealed, it wouldn't be the trophy hunters out killing all the animals, it would be the people feeding their family for a couple weeks for a $1 bullet and it would be the guys selling venison to frou-frou NYC restaurants and buckskin to clothing manufacturers.


No, sorry, a small number of rich hunters with the political will to actually implement regulation may have seen the benifit of setting aside land for future hunting,  (because they saw how selfish and shortsighted their brethren were); the vast majority of hunters do not give a shiat about the future and would not have done shiat for conservation on their own without it being forced on them.  There is no "as a group" hunters made a moral decision to conserve thing happening here, hence the reason there are permits and enforcement agencies.  Your argument that sport hunters are more moral than subsistance or market hunters is false.

Second, your implication that only the sport hunter can  look toward the future is flawed.  any subsistance or market hunter that practiced sustainability would see that conservation would prolong their livelihood or food source, you don't have to be a privileged sport hunter to look toward sustainable practices.
 
2013-05-08 04:44:48 PM

Molavian: manimal2878: This is the biggest bullshiat I have ever seen.  It's not the sport hunters that increase the numbers, it's the regulation of sports hunters that preserves the numbers of game animals.  If there were no hunting permits required, most "sport hunters" wouldn't pay shiat toward conservation and the woods would be picked clean in a season.

Yes.  It was PETA that did it all.


fark Peta.
 
2013-05-08 04:50:25 PM

Subtle_Canary: dittybopper: manimal2878: This is the biggest bullshiat I have ever seen.  It's not the sport hunters that increase the numbers, it's the regulation of sports hunters that preserves the numbers of game animals.  If there were no hunting permits required, most "sport hunters" wouldn't pay shiat toward conservation and the woods would be picked clean in a season.

Who do you think pressed for things like limited seasons, bag limits, permits, and the banning of commercial hunting (ie., market hunting)?

Sport hunters, that's who.

That's because as a group, they wanted to continue hunting, and they knew if they didn't act to protect the game they hunted, there would be none left.

Also, I disagree with you:  Subsistence hunters would, as would market hunters, but if all hunting regulations were repealed, it wouldn't be the trophy hunters out killing all the animals, it would be the people feeding their family for a couple weeks for a $1 bullet and it would be the guys selling venison to frou-frou NYC restaurants and buckskin to clothing manufacturers.

The people most critical of abusive hunters or poor game management are other hunters. Want to start a fist fight? find a group of hunters at a club and laugh about how you keep losing wounded animals.


I've been around plenty of hunters that don't care about wounding animals, don't care about what's in season, if they can take a buck or a doe, or if it has the right number of points, or.anything  Going hunting with my parents as a kid and seeing the callous disregard their redneck friends had towards the animals they hunted is the sole reason why I call bullshiat on the concept that hunters increase wildlife numbers and that without the hunters moral choice there would be no conservation of hunting lands today.

I've also been on many a boat where, sport fisherman, keep a second cooler below deck for those Redfish, that are just an inch too big.  Trust me, these so called sportsmen, are not increasing the number of anything.  To claim that those who call themselves sportsmen are somehow more moral than those that hunt or fish for food is laughable to me.
 
2013-05-08 04:50:45 PM

SumoJeb: Watch it you fark monkeys that have no idea what you are talking about. Guiding hunts feeds my family. Hunters and fishermen have always been the biggest and most effective supporters of environmental and wildlife conservation. fark you all that say trophy hunting is bad. It puts food on the table and money in my pocket. My clients go home with memories and respect for the wilderness of Canada. And their permit fees are one of the leading contributors to wildlife management and research . Bc guide Outfitters are on the leading edge of DNA sequencing research for north American land mammals. How much out of pocket have you spent on conservation research? Do you.volunteer for this research? I do, along with hundreds of other guides. So fark off city folk. And keep your nose out of shiat you are clueless about.


In the state of Maine hunting licenses pay for the bulk of game management costs. Otherwise you get a situation like Pennsylvania with deer roadkill all over the place.
 
2013-05-08 04:50:59 PM

Subtle_Canary: Calmamity: Killing animals for their heads is bullsh*t.

Well they shouldnt have attached their heads to such tasty tasty meat.


lol
 
2013-05-08 04:51:09 PM

manimal2878: any subsistance or market hunter that practiced sustainability would see that conservation would prolong their livelihood or food source, you don't have to be a privileged sport hunter to look toward sustainable practices.


There is tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years of evidence proving you wrong.
 
2013-05-08 04:51:35 PM

manimal2878: dittybopper: It's *NOT* ironic, it's *EXPECTED*.

Sport hunters were the original conservationists.

There are 3 kinds of hunting:

1. Subsistence hunting.  This is hunting for food, ie., in order to survive.  It can also include hunting things that are eating your crops or your children.

2. Market hunting:  This is hunting for money.  It can be legal or illegal (poaching), and it can even be to collect a government provided bounty, but the motivation is cash.

3. Sport hunting.  This is hunting because you enjoy the challenge and the chase.  You may eat the animal afterwards, but the primary purpose is because you enjoy it.

The first two have resulted in the extinction and near extinction of countless animals.

The last one, sport hunting, has a track record of *INCREASING* the numbers of game animals.   The reason for this apparent paradox is that sport hunters want to keep on doing what they like, and they will invest time and money into things like habitat protection to ensure that they continue to have animals to hunt.


This is the biggest bullshiat I have ever seen.  It's not the sport hunters that increase the numbers, it's the regulation of sports hunters that preserves the numbers of game animals.  If there were no hunting permits required, most "sport hunters" wouldn't pay shiat toward conservation and the woods would be picked clean in a season.




Your sir or madam are dead wrong. Sportsmen or women for that matter tend to be better caretakers of the wild then the granola type hippies. In Missouri it was estimated that there was less then 100 wild turkeys in 1930. All which was confined to the Peck Ranch wilderness. Now Missouri has the largest flock of wild turkeys in USA. Concerned sportsmen worked hard to improve habitat and help trap transfer birds. Improving turkey habitat helped all of nature. Now in spring turkeys gobble across Missouri because of hunters. Are flock is so large are birds are trapped and used to restiblish populations across the USA
 
2013-05-08 04:52:11 PM

Subtle_Canary: dittybopper: manimal2878: This is the biggest bullshiat I have ever seen.  It's not the sport hunters that increase the numbers, it's the regulation of sports hunters that preserves the numbers of game animals.  If there were no hunting permits required, most "sport hunters" wouldn't pay shiat toward conservation and the woods would be picked clean in a season.

Who do you think pressed for things like limited seasons, bag limits, permits, and the banning of commercial hunting (ie., market hunting)?

Sport hunters, that's who.

That's because as a group, they wanted to continue hunting, and they knew if they didn't act to protect the game they hunted, there would be none left.

Also, I disagree with you:  Subsistence hunters would, as would market hunters, but if all hunting regulations were repealed, it wouldn't be the trophy hunters out killing all the animals, it would be the people feeding their family for a couple weeks for a $1 bullet and it would be the guys selling venison to frou-frou NYC restaurants and buckskin to clothing manufacturers.

The people most critical of abusive hunters or poor game management are other hunters. Want to start a fist fight? find a group of hunters at a club and laugh about how you keep losing wounded animals.


I guess in the instanced I've been, it's been more like I'm the one walking in and criticizing a club of people that see no issue with wounding animals.
 
2013-05-08 04:54:29 PM

dittybopper: manimal2878: any subsistance or market hunter that practiced sustainability would see that conservation would prolong their livelihood or food source, you don't have to be a privileged sport hunter to look toward sustainable practices.

There is tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years of evidence proving you wrong


Really?  There is thousands of years of evidence proving that sustainable practices don't work if implemented by anyone other than sports hunters?  Maybe you misread what I wrote, because that statement is full on retarded.
 
2013-05-08 04:57:07 PM

Mid_mo_mad_man: . Sportsmen or women for that matter tend to be better caretakers of the wild then the granola type hippies


In my estimation they do not tend to be better at all.  And what do hippies have to do with anything?

   There are a small number of them that would choose to conserve whether there were regulations or not.  The vast majority only do so to avoid legal complications because of the regulations in place.
 
2013-05-08 05:08:18 PM

manimal2878: dittybopper: manimal2878: any subsistance or market hunter that practiced sustainability would see that conservation would prolong their livelihood or food source, you don't have to be a privileged sport hunter to look toward sustainable practices.

There is tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years of evidence proving you wrong

Really?  There is thousands of years of evidence proving that sustainable practices don't work if implemented by anyone other than sports hunters?  Maybe you misread what I wrote, because that statement is full on retarded.


No, thousands upon thousands of years of evidence that people who hunt to fill their bellies don't care about 'sustainable' practices.  They just care where their next meal comes from.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-08 05:13:48 PM

dittybopper: Maud Dib: dittybopper:
3. Sport hunting.  This is hunting because you enjoy the challenge and the chase.  You may eat the animal afterwards, but the primary purpose is because you enjoy it.

What sport hunting might look like...

[mikehanback.typepad.com image 400x268]

Ahh, the thrill of the chase.

Relentlessly stalking baiting the prey....
[mssparky.com image 500x375]

Actually, this is what I use:







/Well *TECHNICALLY* that head I knapped is too small to hunt big game with in my state, but it's OK for small game and varmints like coyote.
//Am going to knap some bigger heads for the coming bow season


Much respect, I don't believe most people have any idea how much effort and skill goes into learning and honing primitive survival skills.
 
2013-05-08 05:14:03 PM

manimal2878: dittybopper: manimal2878: any subsistance or market hunter that practiced sustainability would see that conservation would prolong their livelihood or food source, you don't have to be a privileged sport hunter to look toward sustainable practices.

There is tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years of evidence proving you wrong

Really?  There is thousands of years of evidence proving that sustainable practices don't work if implemented by anyone other than sports hunters?  Maybe you misread what I wrote, because that statement is full on retarded.


You moved the goalpost with "... that practice sustainability." The fact is that for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years sustainable practices were not...um... practiced.  It took the appearance of the sport hunter to come up with even the idea of sustainable hunting.  So yes, if market or subsistence hunters had developed sustainable practices it would have worked.  Unfortunately for you, the sport hunters you have such a raging hard-on against developed them, put them into practice, and are reaping the rewards of them today.
 
2013-05-08 05:20:45 PM
Can you imagine if he'd only had an AR-15?
 
2013-05-08 05:30:39 PM
dittybopper
 
Man, I wish I could get some lessons or advice from you! Where I'm at right now, I'm stuck in an urban area doing menial work, but my goal in life is to earn a piece of rural property and hunt and farm for sustenance, supplemented with some kind of self-employment. I know that, since I don't have a country upbringing, I couldn't sneak up on a deer and would have to use a rifle at first, but I hope to someday get enough skill to hunt with a longbow and knife.
 
Truth be told, I've fished but I've never even been on a hunt. There could be few greater noobs than me in this thread
 
2013-05-08 05:42:15 PM
Oh look another thread with whiny liberals complaining about hunting while they have never hunted, or probably been in the woods. Want to know what you're going to do about sport hunting? Absolutely nothing, oh you'll remember how someone hunted a hippo or a grizzly bear and think mean thoughts, maybe say they have a small dick. That's all you'll do, because you won't actually do anything productive, you won't volunteer to help reintroduce spruce grouse, you won't hunt problem bears. You'd prefer to sit in your apartments and call the people that actually support wildlife conservation limp dicked pussies.
 
In short,
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-08 05:47:40 PM

Terrydatroll: LordJiro: dittybopper: It's *NOT* ironic, it's *EXPECTED*.

Sport hunters were the original conservationists.

There are 3 kinds of hunting:

1. Subsistence hunting.  This is hunting for food, ie., in order to survive.  It can also include hunting things that are eating your crops or your children.

2. Market hunting:  This is hunting for money.  It can be legal or illegal (poaching), and it can even be to collect a government provided bounty, but the motivation is cash.

3. Sport hunting.  This is hunting because you enjoy the challenge and the chase making yourself feel better by killing big, 'scary' animals.  You may eat the animal afterwards, but the primary purpose is because you enjoy it. are insecure.

FTFY. Put away the high-powered rifles and shiat, take down an elephant or leopard with a farking spear, and THEN I'll believe it's "about the challenge".

Actually go hunting in Africa and then if you say it isn't a challenge then I will bow to your opinion. I have not been hunting in Africa, but shooting a deer in Alabama is plenty challenging enough for me, A rogue elephant or tiger would have to be worse.


Like anything else...it depends.
 
You can go on a canned hunt in Africa, and shoot a de-clawed lion with your rifle...not much of a challenge.
 
Or, you can go into the bush, and not come out....
 
2013-05-08 05:50:37 PM

ficklefkrfark: dittybopper: Maud Dib: dittybopper:
3. Sport hunting.  This is hunting because you enjoy the challenge and the chase.  You may eat the animal afterwards, but the primary purpose is because you enjoy it.

 
What sport hunting might look like...
 
[mikehanback.typepad.com image 400x268]
 
Ahh, the thrill of the chase.
 
Relentlessly stalking baiting the prey....
[mssparky.com image 500x375]

 
Actually, this is what I use:

/Well *TECHNICALLY* that head I knapped is too small to hunt big game with in my state, but it's OK for small game and varmints like coyote.
//Am going to knap some bigger heads for the coming bow season

 
Much respect, I don't believe most people have any idea how much effort and skill goes into learning and honing primitive survival skills.
 
Oh, please.  Just the other day I went to the supermarket, and returned with my kills, WITHOUT using my GPS or even my cell phone to call my wife to ask what was on the list.
 
2013-05-08 05:58:40 PM

PunGent: Terrydatroll: LordJiro: dittybopper: It's *NOT* ironic, it's *EXPECTED*.

Sport hunters were the original conservationists.

There are 3 kinds of hunting:

1. Subsistence hunting.  This is hunting for food, ie., in order to survive.  It can also include hunting things that are eating your crops or your children.

2. Market hunting:  This is hunting for money.  It can be legal or illegal (poaching), and it can even be to collect a government provided bounty, but the motivation is cash.

3. Sport hunting.  This is hunting because you enjoy the challenge and the chase making yourself feel better by killing big, 'scary' animals.  You may eat the animal afterwards, but the primary purpose is because you enjoy it. are insecure.

FTFY. Put away the high-powered rifles and shiat, take down an elephant or leopard with a farking spear, and THEN I'll believe it's "about the challenge".

Actually go hunting in Africa and then if you say it isn't a challenge then I will bow to your opinion. I have not been hunting in Africa, but shooting a deer in Alabama is plenty challenging enough for me, A rogue elephant or tiger would have to be worse.

Like anything else...it depends.
 
You can go on a canned hunt in Africa, and shoot a de-clawed lion with your rifle...not much of a challenge.
 
Or, you can go into the bush, and not come out....


Yeah, canned hunts are for scumbags. I will agree with that. Takes a real POS to kill something rendered helpless.well...other than ants and rats and stuff.
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report